Those who are constantly calling for America to accept ever more immigrants and refugees skillfully avoid talking about the murders and mass murders that have been perpetrated by immigrants from the middle east or Africa. And they NEVER mention the problems and many kinds of crimes, including murders and mass murders perpetrated by second generation immigrants from those places. But clearly that is a MAJOR problem. Imo, the cultural differences between immigrants from the middle east or Africa are so great, that they can never be bridged. Allowing them in is just importing more and more problems. America should be more selective about who it lets into the country. Cultural similarities should be at the top of the list of qualifications, imo.
I have discussed the mass murderers at great length. You keep hearing about vetting processes, background checks, etc., etc. but to what end? All the mass murderers I mentioned were super "vetted." It don't work. It hasn't worked. Isn't it time to think outside the box? If you can put more Americans back into the workforce, it will mean less jobs for people to come here to fill. The thinking is, if we deport Hispanics, those jobs will be there for an American. They won't be. Many businesses would rather go belly up than pick from the sorry crop of Americans we have AND many of those will never work as long as mommy is giving them money and Uncle Scam is picking mommy's slack.
Then if you support the immigration laws, please tell us the truth. Explain how you can support immigration laws that were passed by a liberal Democrat by the name of Ted Kennedy AND those laws give preference to non-whites? Are you a liberal?
Absolutely not, when did I state that I support the immigration laws? The main immigration laws that I support are the ones which require those who are here illegally to leave or be deported. The only thing I have been debating is the conspiracy theory of evil corporations as though they are living entities.
So, when the immigration laws are convenient they should be obeyed, but when they are opposed to the things you believe in, you no longer support them??? I weighed it out and I'm not in favor of the current immigration laws. You are a pick and choose kind of guy. It don't leave you much room to condemn those who don't acknowledge those anti-free market laws that are discriminatory toward employers.
Ok, of all immigration laws are bad then which laws would you recommend we use to deport those here illegally or do you want the to stay and allow more in?
Let those here with American families and those working come forward, pay any back taxes, get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, pay a $1000 fee for a fine and make sure they are not wanted, give them a Guest Worker status with no citizenship attached and call it a day.
I don't have the luxury of picking and choosing which parts of statutes are good or bad. You have three choices: 1) Blindly obey all laws 2) Cherry pick - which may help you feel good, but you end up ignoring laws you don't like, which puts you in the same boat with people you claim to loathe and despise 3) Do what our forefathers did and rebel against tyrannical laws. IMO, if one part of the law is tyrannical and is questionable, I say scrap it and start over.
Number 3 is what sanctuary cities and states are trying to do and it will fail because majority of Americans know we need immigration laws and don't want open borders.
Sanctuary cities are pretty well protected. In 1997 Sheriff Richard Mack went to the United States Supreme Court and won a case wherein he said that he (a local sheriff) was under no obligation to enforce federal gun laws. If a sheriff does not have to enforce federal gun laws, local governments don't have to enforce federal immigration laws. It's that 14th Amendment. Sometimes your own precedents don't give you the results you want, but then again, this immigration crap is an assault on the core of Liberty.
Once again you confuse immigration with illegal immigration. If people are here illegally then they are not immigrants they are criminals who broke the law by coming here in the first place. Cities who harbor and protect them are breaking the law as well. Those cites should either comply or risk losing federal funding and if they want to continue protecting these criminals then they should secede from the union.
No sir. YOU are confused. Bear in mind that I worked in immigration law for six years. What we're dealing with are people who here in civil violation of the law. "Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. ... it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States." Arizona v United States 641 F. 3d 339 (2012) That is the ruling by the United States Supreme Court. Now, you'll get a lot of B.S. from computer commandos who have never been in any kind of immigration proceedings, but I will quote you the way it was when I was working in the business. The head of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security stated: “And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil." http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/n.../22/id/329647/ This is a far cry from criminal law. And, again, you can listen to keyboard commandos. IF they were right, they would go into the proceedings and present their arguments. It's pointless for you to argue against the highest ranking authorities in immigration law. The highest ranking immigration official in the United States ruled: The highest ranking immigration official in the United States at the time RULED: "Aliens in removal proceedings have no right to counsel, including Government-appointed counsel, under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution because the Sixth Amendment applies only to criminal proceedings and removal proceedings are civil in nature.".. 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009 ) https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/INT/HTML/INT/0-0-0-42832/0-0-0-61389.html#0-0-0-5413 Sorry, dude. You can quote all the laws that the anti-immigrants do not understand and it doesn't change the bottom line. Besides that, I don't know what the status of a foreigner has to do with what we were talking about. Again, the United States Supreme Court has ruled on this and undocumented immigrants DO have constitutional Rights. If you think you're right, I'd tell you to get involved in some legal case and begin working to prove it. Otherwise, remember that in 1803, in a case called Marbury v. Madison, the United States Supreme Court declared themselves to be the final arbiter of what the law is. To this date, not even Jesus himself has challenged their authority. Once they've ruled - your only option is to amend the Constitution. Good luck with that. P.S. Let me save you some time. Go whip out Title 8 USC 1325 (a civil statute) and try telling me how wrong I am. Ignore the fact that it is not a standalone statute, but relies on Title 18 (which IS the Criminal Code) AND that improper entry is NOT a crime in Title 18 - and that is why the courts have RULED that being here is a civil violation. Keep getting your boxers in a bunch over a minor violation of the law. That's why you're losing and never solving any issues. The anti-immigrants don't have a legitimate cause. And, you were so desperate, your post didn't even apply to our conversation. It WILL change the conversation, however.
Even if being here undocumented is a civil matter, when these undocumented commit crimes and are arrested then they should be deported back to their country of origin. This is what sanctuary cities are rebelling against. Nobody is trying to deport any who have not committed crimes. If an undocumented breaks a law and is arrested in a sanctuary city they are then turned loose and not held for ICE.
My God. Will the right ever wake up? Read this carefully: The federal government cannot go into a sanctuary city and arrest people for being here without papers. Like it or not the United States Supreme Court does not agree with you. It is not a crime to be here and the government cannot go in there. AND the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the local governments do NOT have to enforce federal laws. IF a criminal is in a sanctuary city and the federal government has a warrant, the federal government can go into any sanctuary city and arrest for a federal crime... But, being present in the United States without papers is not a federal crime. Like it or not, believe it or not, the moment the foreigner's feet hit this soil, the 14th Amendment applies. The foreigner will be given Due Process no matter how much you hate the concept of innocent until proven guilty. That means PROBABLE CAUSE, AN ARREST, A BOOKING, A TRIAL AND ALL THE TRIMMINGS. This ain't rocket science.
To anybody that follows these threads, it's obvious that those who fret over the immigration issue refuse to use critical thinking skills. They absolutely hate it when they are told the legal precedents as to WHY we cannot force the local governments to enforce federal law. They've lost their damn minds. There were issues of jurisdiction, boundaries, powers, etc. Then... Then... Then... And then the right went to court and argued against using local governments from enforcing federal laws. That precedent came in quite handy when the government was attacking your Right to keep and bear Arms. And now, these anti-immigrant guys would sh!+can that win just to deny some broke down foreigner the Liberty he was born with??????
After all the trimmings and they are found guilty then should they be placed in our prison system where we pay their housing and upkeep or should they be deported back to their country of origin?
Under our laws, if a foreigner breaks a criminal law at the local level, they are held accountable for it at the local level. If the state opts out (I'm really behind the curve on recent developments) they don't have to enforce federal law. So, at the local level, it's up to the local and state government as to whether they want to comply. The Supreme Court says you can't force them. OTOH, let's suppose you're right. Pedro gets picked up on a federal beef... phony SSN, phony immigration documents, whatever. The law specifically states they will be prosecuted separately for the crime and then deported. Serve the time and take the ride home. They are separate actions; however, certain crimes mean that a person is deported - and sometimes that applies to the "legal" variety of folks as you call them. I just don't get what the uproar is about. You may not like the foreigners being here, but let's be practical. HALF of America disagrees with you. The right makes this a "house" analogy so when someone is paying their part of the rent (the taxes in this analogy) then what the guy in California does is his business. Why do you get your boxers in a bunch? It wasn't until recently that any segment of Americans had a big problem with the presence of people from south of the border (that's where over 90 percent of the undocumented people come from.) Make this easy for me: My wife has a 30 year old son by another marriage. He has no high school diploma, has never had a driver's license, has never held a job more than - maybe 6 months. He's never going to work because mommy mollycoddled his sorry a** all his life and still gives him money. Since he is homeless (I kicked his a** out a year ago when he refused to look for a job) he lives in a tent. He goes to the hospital and has no insurance - he goes constantly. He gets a few bucks from the government. Then he rips off Walmart, goes to jail for a few weeks and they kick him out. He sleeps in the tent and then the weather or other things make him sick, then it's the hospital, Walmart, jail. We have hundreds of these worthless pieces of scatalogical waste here. Mexicans here have jobs, pay taxes, and if I ever need help, give them a holler and they come running. You want me to get rid of that for ?????? If the neighbors leave, the real scumbags aren't going to move in, magically get the job and become productive citizens. I'm thinking we should focus on getting our own house in order. Don't you?
When I post my Conservative beliefs about illegal aliens, I get a lot of "sob-sister" replies about how "we're all immigrants". It was true in the case of my family which came here from Germany about 100 years ago. Back then, and back when they put that 'plaque' on the Statue of Liberty, we NEEDED immigrants. It was a huge, wide-open country as the U. S. entered the 20th-century... we needed people who could, and WOULD, work! Now, fast-forward to today! Been driving in traffic lately? Have a little trouble getting around and finding a damn parking place? Do you stand in long lines for nearly every single thing you do? People, we do NOT have a 'population-shortage' problem today! We don't NEED any more people flooding into the United States -- of any variety! We should have an immediate five-year moratorium on ALL immigration into the United States until we even begin to absorb what we've got here right now, and give us a "breather" so that we can figure out what the hell to do about immigration next! We can allow Green Card temporary workers to come in and work in critical areas like construction and agriculture -- but it must be strictly enforced that they come in, work, and then LEAVE! Any American employer caught breaking any immigration or alien-employment laws should be imprisoned and heavily fined on a ZERO-TOLERANCE basis! And under no circumstances should anybody be allowed to wander in here illegally and start sucking on the big Democrat Party's Welfare Circus 'teat'. The "anchor-baby" bullshit needs to be thrown out, too! All of that should be halted by an Executive Order before the sun sets today.
So much to answer to. 1) For the most part, undocumented immigrants do not qualify for any "Democrat Party's Welfare Circus." To quote an article: "Contrary to common perception, illegal immigrants don't qualify for public benefits like welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid, as these programs require proof of legal immigration status." http://theweek.com/articles/650402/truth-about-americas-illegal-immigrants 2) NOBODY can rule by Executive Fiat. The slur the right has to use for babies "anchor babies" is unfortunate being that the right claims to believe in the law and all of that. The children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States are just as much American as you. You can thank the illegally ratified 14th Amendment and the courts for that. If you don't like it, you could always abandon the anti-immigrant bandwagon and work on some efforts that could produce something 3) You cannot, in a de jure / constitutional Republic lock out people from the workforce. You are advocating the denial of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed in the Constitution to employers. Hmmm. Law isn't working too good for the platform you've signed onto, is it? 4) I agree that we need to ban ALL immigration for a time. Since it won't be done, we should start seeking out ways to work within the parameters of both reason and the law to get a better result than we have right now 5) America was not founded on some silly notion of whether or not we "needed" people to come to this country. That's not the way it works. We are a nation founded on the principles of Liberty and Justice - a nation about Freedom and unalienable Rights. Early in our nation's history only white people could become citizens. Yet, from every corner of the globe foreigners came here to take advantage of the opportunities our country can afford. It's what we now call a free market. Foreigners are here, NOT because you want them or don't want them (in this case), but because your fellow Americans hire them. And they hire them because some Americans don't want to do the work. Other Americans are locked out of the job market due to legislation, supposedly aimed against foreigners, that hits Americans too (remember that equal protection of the laws I keep referring to???) It cuts both ways. Millions of your fellow Americans cannot pass the sill a** background checks and end up in a viscous cycle of broken homes, unemployment, prison, welfare, etc. You're so focused on the little brown people that you aren't taking your neighbor out of poverty and despair, helping them to integrate into society and take the jobs instead of giving them away.
I agree with you but if Trump does it with executive order the liberal 9th circuit court will rule against it.
