Why isn't repbulican congress fixing immigration?

Are you really this inept?

Are you sure it wasn't Jimmy Carter, which is the plan Reagan used.

Me caught in a corner? Where did I call you a name? What you have presented is ideological stupidity. Again, are you really this inept?

Politifact says Bush deported 10.6 million, CIS says he deported 10.3 million. http://cis.org/vaughan/obama-deportations-definitely-not-record-breaking

Even at Obamas rate he will not surpass Bush or Clinton for that matter.

Your inanity is And here I pointed out exactly that Obama says his numbers are deceptive due to policy change. I have no bias, unlike you and your ideological stupidity.

 

It is not funny at all and I have history on my side

 

Who said anything about destroying the nation, Mr Straw Man ? he simple fact here is that when your resources are scarce. to the point that you engage in rationing them (resident allowed to water lawns only once a week, no private car washing, etc), this is not the time to be adding more population, thereby making the scarcity worse. I know a few 5th graders who could explain that, if you need further clarification.

As for Canada, lol, they might be friendly, but they still are another country from the US. You want something from another country, you have to PAY them for it. Yeah, they have a lot of fresh water. So does Saudi Arabia have a lot of oil, and look at what that has brought us over the years.

So I couldn't disagree with you more. Yes, we have a huge challenge with water, and it will be "much of a problem for America", and a worse one as time goes by, as population increases. This is a very overpopulated country, that needs to depopulate, not INcrease its population.

 

The issue is kept alive because the goal of the 'powers that be' is the free flow of all people, products, and money across all borders. The republicans kiss the Wizard of Oz's arse just like the Dems. All the wrangling about immigration is just a ruse to keep us occupied until their are too many 'migrants' in the US to do anything about. That will be the day they announce the North American Union.

 

No, because even then, you would still have many more harms to Americans occuring, which that "somebody" didn't mention >>

1. Remittances loss from US economy - $123 Billion/year (2012 figure)

2. Worsen resource scarcity.

3. Spread foreign disease (ex Entero virus D6

4. Increase traffic congestion.

5. Increase pollution et al environmental degradation.

6. They commit a crime (US Code 8, Section 1325), then second the cross the border without inspection, and break law overstaying visas. No matter how you turn it, you bring in immigrants, you get more crime than what you had. (we really need that don't we ?)

7. Overcrowding in schools.

8. Overcrowding in hospitals (and non-payment in ERs due to EMTALA)

9. Overcrowding of government offices + increase in telephone hold times.

10. Overcrowding of recreational facilities.

11. Cultural erosion.

12. You don't shut up about people breaking disrespecting your laws (and thereby you as well) Our ancestors put those immigration laws there for good reason, and I just gave you a list of them, in addition to the hypothetical you cited, which won't happen.

 

Sorry to rain on your little link here, but it doesn't one iota refute what I said about remittances, and I'm not quite sure what you think it is saying. It claims that remittances help to fix poverty. Yeah, I would think so. But that is talking about poverty IN MEXICO.

EARTH TO JONSA: It is not the job or responsibility of the country being pillaged by remittances, to cure poverty in the country that is sending its migrants (international burglars) into your country to plunder it. Quite the contrary, it is the responsibility of the US public officials to deter other countries from engaging in this 21st century parallel to medieval Viking invasions.

You think I don't know how Mexico is being helped by remittances ? They are Mexico's # 2 source of income (2nd to their oil exports) and combined with the anchor baby racket /false documentation scamming for welfare $$$, these are Mexico's # 1 source of income.

So what do you say ? That because remittances are a huge + for Mexico, therefore somehow we should like and support them ? Pheeeeew! (high-pitched whistle). Dude, it's very simple. They come here, take our money, and make it their theirs. Good for them. Bad for us. Got it ? And you don't cover that up by tossing out some graduate student's term paper, which only says the same thing.

Putting this on a smaller scale, if you're OK with your neighbor illegally entering your house at night, while you're in bed asleep, and burglarizing you for 60 years, that lunacy should be YOUR problem, and not the problem of your whole community, who are sane enough to not allow it.

 

What a coincidence! Your last line here is exactly the words that I was going to say about YOUR "nonsense YOU are regurgitating."

And I guess my Post # 202 "zoomed over YOUR head." YES, the lousy immigrants ARE stealing our money (by remittancing) AND stealing our jobs, AND clogging the roads (or at least ADDING to the clogging), AND drinking the water (thereby WORSENING the water shortages) YES> YES> YES, and many more YESes.

>>>MOD EDIT Rule 2 Removed<<<

 

1. Maybe you don't have much of a conception of what (in regards to Iraq, and all the middle east) constitutes "won". Is that your problem here ? If so, Let me know, and I will cure it for you.

2. The Iran giveaway was well described by Weekly Standard editor William Kristol. >> &#8220;It&#8217;s a deal that gives the Iranian regime $140 billion in return for &#8230; effectively nothing: no dismantlement of Iran&#8217;s nuclear program, no anytime/anywhere inspections, no curbs on Iran&#8217;s ballistic missile program, no maintenance of the arms embargo, no halt to Iran&#8217;s sponsorship of terror," (and no return of US hostages)

And if anyone thinks, for one second, that the Iranians are going to be truthful, are going to stop working on a nuclear bomb, and are going to allow meaningful inspections, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn waiting for them. Good grief!

This whole idiotic fiasco was done just so Obama could look back, in later years, and say he did something. Oh yeah, he did something all right. So did Neville Chamberlain. Pheeeew!

 

lolol. This is what you said that I said is funny and I hoped I didn't have to explain why it's funny:

How can you possibly not know that being illegal Is criminal? How can you possibly not know that illegals and criminals are one and the same?

History on your side? What in God's Name are you talking about?

Good God!

 

Jonsa, is it a crime to enter the USA illegally, yes or no? Spare us the Liberal "tap dance" BS. Yes or no?

 

Pay for fresh water from Canada? Apparently you aren't familiar with the fact that Americans PAY for their fresh water now.

Regional water shortages occur all the time, you have heard of the concept of "drought" have you not? It happens with some regularity throughout the world.

What has oil from Saudi Arabia brought America other than oil and massive Saudi investment in the US with petrodollars. Of course you get three times more oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia and look what that has brought you over the years.


As for depopulating the US, if you feel so strongly about it, perhaps you should lead the way.

 

Yes it does. the hidden imam will not be revealed until the second coming of Issa (Jesus) so your claim that they are religious crazies who believe he will pull their chestnuts out of the fire before any retaliation from their "first strike" actions is clearly wrong. The end of days for both Christians and Muslims REQUIRES Jesus to return and as you say it will be obvious to all when he does. In which case, geo-politics goes out the window.

 

I repeat the question, Jonsa. Yes or no?

 

Seems some right wingers have a rather distorted conception of what winning is.
Did the fighting in Iraq ever stop? NO
Did the US defeat AQ? NO
Did the US get Iraqi oil to pay for the war? NO
Did the US establish a stable government in Iraq after "victory"? NO
Did the US find the heinous WMD that was its supposed raison d'etre? NO
Did the US de-baathification program work to strengthen Iraqi institutions? NO

But by all means please please enlighten me as to how the clustermuck that was the Iraq war was "won".

The agreement give Iran back its own $140 billion. the agreement was NEVER about hostages or ballistic missiles or arms embargos. It was strictly about preventing Iran from from building nukes. It does allow for anytime/anywhere inspections at all civilian facilities, and 24 day notice at military facilities and if the critics were at all up to date on the kind of technologies that can be deployed in these inspections, they would understand that the Iranians CAN:T eliminate the trace evidence of enriched nuclear material handling.

But for some strange reason (partisan politics perhaps) all of a sudden the deal should have include all these other issues, which were never on the table to begin with.

As for the Chamberlin reference so popular in conservative circles, that might be an effective misrepresentation, but it sure as hell ain't accurate. Perhaps you are not aware of the real story of Chamberlin's "peace in our time" appeasement of Hitler. I don't recall the 6 other most powerful polities on the planet ALL agreeing with him and participating in a landmark agreement. But hey, Luntzism rules conservative bumperstickers.

 

The republicans control both houses. Are you saying that they are incapable with getting a veto-proof bill? After all, last year they ran on a platform on guaranteeing change that American's have been craving for the past 6 years and as we all know, republican's would never lie to the American people.

 

I guess the concepts of macro economics escapes you. Do you understand what a current capital account is? do you comprehend the notion of balance of payments?

It appears from your analogy you are claiming that all remittances are from illegal aliens.
I guess you didn't actually understand my "little link" which actually describes the main sources of remittances, which is not surprising since it was rather academic.

 

For the third time I ask you the aforementioned question. Don't be a coward. Man up, Buttercup.

 

So you assume way to much. For instance that the amillenial view is the only one and further that it dovetails with the Shi'a Islamic view which it is not, and does not. For instance, dispensationalist premillenialism predicts one or more hidden second comings of Jesus before the final one that will be obvious to all.

 

Because the Republican base is extremely racist and won't settle for anything short of mass deportations of Latinos - and I doubt they're going to be all that particular about what sort of legal status those deportees have. Meanwhile, the rest of the country (ie, the large majority of Americans) have a few slight moral problems with creating a later day Trail of Tears.

Okay, so people coming to the US to build houses, harvest crops, clean our buildings and care for our children are somehow the equivalent of viking raiders? Do you know anything at all about vikings other than the name? Do you have any idea of the brutality and horror of Dark Ages warfare? So you think that having brown skinned people in your general vicinity is as bad as seeing members of your family literally cut in half before your eyes?

Yes, immigrants take "our" money and makes it theirs. Just like you take your employer's money and make it yours when you get paid. Just like companies take your money and make it theirs when you buy goods and services. It's called an economy. Honest, the point of money is not to make a giant bed of gold and jewels for yourself like a dragon out of a fantasy novel.

Earth to rocker65: prosperity in Mexico is good for the US. A prosperous Mexico can buy more American goods and services than an impoverished Mexico. A prosperous Mexico can provide goods and services of value to the US. It's this new fangled idea called trade. A prosperous Mexico will also have far less incentive for people to do things like join gangs, run drugs, engage in violence, take hostages for ransom, and so on. In short, a prosperous Mexico is good for everyone, with the possible exception of those who consider it a horrible tyranny to be forced to see non-white people.

Yes, being an undocumented worker is against the law. And in 1955, a black woman refusing to give up her seat on a bus to a white man was against the law too. The current immigration law is a form of institutionalized racism. It is immoral, it is unethical, it is unwise, and it is unenforceable. Just like with segregation, the law is the problem, not the people breaking it. Are you really going to argue that Rosa Parks should be considered the same as a murderer?

 

That's one very big, very old, very ugly, very unnecessary chip you've got on your shoulder. I personally couldn't care less about Rosa Parks. You should probably start putting one foot in front of the other and move forward. And clue: Where I'm from, it was never, ever, not for a second, against the law for a black woman to do whatever you said and apparently believe. We didn't have a lot of blacks where I lived but those that were there came and went as they pleased. We gave them no grief. In fact, they used to fish in my Dad's large farm pond, free, fish for the catching.

Your little high horse is a massive fail.

Oh, and btw, I'm old enough to have lived before, during, and after the Rosa Parks stuff. Rosa Parks aside, my point is that the person to whom I responded apparently doesn't understand that illegal alien and criminal is the same thing. And yes, it's very sad that I had to explain it.

 

(sigh) And you completely miss the point. It's a simple analogy. Segregation laws were unjust. Rosa Parks (and a great many others) broke those laws. Should they therefore be considered criminals in the same sense as murders? Similarly, the current immigration law is unjust. Should those who break it then be considered criminals in the same sense as murders? Or if you don't like Rosa Parks, then consider Mahatma Gandhi or Samuel Adams. They both deliberately broke laws they considered unjust. Are they the same as murders?

For that matter, anyone who breaks the speed limit while driving or takes an extra deduction on their taxes is also breaking the law every bit as much as someone who crosses the border illegally. Should they all be considered criminals in the same sense as murders?

You are trying to create a false equivalence. Being an undocumented worker is in no way even remotely close to being in the same category as murder, and you know it. But by drawing that connection you are effectively arguing that undocumented workers should be treated as hardened criminals. And there is the further implication that because they broke a law, those immigrants do not deserve compassion. You are, in short, trying to dehumanize an entire population of people.

This is absolutely no different from historical segregationists trying to paint members of the civil rights movement as communists and common criminals, and is equally morally repugnant.

Tell me, why is it illegal for those folks to come to the US in the first place? What possible reason is there to deny millions of people the opportunity to work hard and make a better life for themselves and their families? The only remotely plausible reason I see for that law is that certain people want to keep out the sand n******.

 

No I don't assume way too much. Fact is that in order for the 12th Imam to reveal himself, Issa MUST first return. According the 12vers, that return will be unambiguous.

If some Christians believe that there are one or two hidden second comings (scouting missions?) before the big reveal, is immaterial and seriously weird dogma.

 

The Wizard and his minions do not care if the plebian schools are overcrowded. They do can if there is scarcity among the plebian. They don't care about any of the things you listed. They area blinded by greed.

 

Well, I'll give you credit for having one honest reason in your list - even if you do try to sugar coat it to disguise the blatant racism.

 

So why didn't those awesome democrats and the Messiah solve this problem during Bam Bam's first term? They had Congress, the Senate and the President. Seems like it would have been taken care of if it was just a problem with the Republicans.