You're talking about the lower tier numbers of illegal immigration. But, while we're on the topic, let's consider for a second the 9/11 hijackers. They're certainly not good argument fodder for a more lax immigration system. The root cause is that they come from places which they do not want to be, for a host of reasons. That's not the problem of American citizens. Applied to everyone? Okay, fine by me but I think that would be met with a lot of resistance. I think employers should have the right to deny employment over nonconfirmation, at least until the issue has been resolved. It doesn't get much more anecdotal than that, certainly not worth creating policy from. - - - Updated - - - And as a result, hundreds of thousands of Japanese persons, many of whom were US citizens, were rounded up and put into internment camp.[/QUOTE]
Where did I endorse(or even mention) Teddy Roosevelt's illegal incarceration of US Citizens? Are you sure we're on the same wavelength here?
Yep, and of course nobody can explain the logistics of building a wall 2000 miles in length, nor consider the cost to US taxpayers. Trump is a bloody fool; and, sadly, there are enough bloody fools dumb enough to consider him a viable candidate for POTUS. If he wins, god help us all.
The democrats have every intention to keep as many non-citizens filling their blue-state "sanctuary cities" as possible, because it will tilt the Electoral College to their favor for decades to come. The republicans have had ample opportunity to do what needs to be done to fix the illegal immigration problems and thwart the democrat plan, and in fact many were given office on their promises to do so; yet they have chosen not to, for some reason. Why? I do not see good prospect for any meaningful immigration reform over the next 5 years, at least until after the 2020 national census.
Nothing is impossible. Highly improbable is more like it. Hillary has an Achilles Heel, it is called independent/swing voters. Among that group of voters she has only a 39% favorable rating vs. a 57% unfavorable. Believe it or not, Trump is a bit worse, 37% favorable, 60% unfavorable. So for a large segment of voters if the election does boil down to Hillary vs. the Donald, it will be a big hold your nose election and I wouldn't be surprised if only around 50% of the electorate showed up to vote. Giving the voters two smelly fish to choose from is not an ideal situation and I consider it a failure of our two party system. If the numbers are right, averaging the national polls today shows Clinton with a slight lead in the popular vote. But within the margin of error. So chances are a race between Clinton and Trump is close to a dead heat. That is today and of course the election is more than a year away. But where the Democrats and Clinton have a huge advantage is in the electoral college. Clinton could easily lose the popular vote by a point or two and still win big in the electoral college. Studying state polls in a match up of Trump vs. Clinton as of today she would win the electoral college by a 326-212 margin. Even if she lost by a point or two the popular vote. Democratic trustworthy states total up to 247 electoral votes whereas Republican trustworthy states add up to only 191. There are 8 states in the tossup/swing category totally 100 electoral votes. Florida 29, Ohio 18, North Carolina 15, Virginia 13, Colorado 9, Iowa 6, Nevada 6 and New Hampshire 4. Clinton needs only 23 electoral votes out of those eight states, Trump or any Republican nominee would need 79. One state, Florida if won by Clinton would put her in the White House.
By far. The democrats are trying to corrupt the Electoral system to gain unfair (in my view) advantage in elections. They are essentially using illegal immigrants to magnify their voting power. It is diabolical, and must be countered, else the republicans will be, for decades to come, at an increased disadvantage with regards to the Electoral College, and they will have no way to remedy it at all until 2030.
So, you support the theory that illegals are a zero net affect. Their tax dollars offset the subsidy to their existence? Please show proof.
Voter ID is irrelevant in this case, because the democrats do not need for illegals to cast votes; they only need be present in their blue state "sanctuary cities", and counted by the national census.
Unless an illegal murders you, robs you, lowers your property value, is taking up space in a hospital bed you need, using an ER doc you need, crashes into you in their car, uses up space in a classroom reducing teacher resources, sells drugs to students in your school, ect. Nah they have no effect what so ever😀
You've defined the net benefit too narrowly. No person's value to the country, whether they be an immigrant or natural-born, can be measured solely on this basis at a point in time. Take their lifetime's contribution in taxes and contribution to economic growth and you're closer to an accurate picture.
There is no problem with legal immigrants. If they can arrive legally, there is no need to do it any other way.
Duh... you build a tiny wall over a small section of the border and of course people will go around it. Building and maintaining a wall across the entire border will bankrupt us.
Spare me the propaganda. The illusion that our border is controlled is just that, an illusion. I doubt you live in Texas with off the wall comments like that. It is common knowledge that our border with mexico is practically open hence millions of illegals in this country.
I take it you have not seen the paperwork that immigrants and non immigrants have to go through just to get the process started. If an alien is applying for a nonimmigrant visa, the following forms will need to be filled out: DS 160, DS 156 for most countries, and/or DS 157 if the alien is working. These must be submitted online by the alien through the Bureau of Consular Affairs with the respective embassy or consulate. IF being sponsored for employment, the employer must first fill out the required forms and submit them to USCIS. Once approved, then the DS 160 will be required with DS 156 and/or DS 157. And if a US citizen is applying on behalf of the alien, the US citizen must apply with the appropriate forms and submit them to USCIS. Once USCIS approves the form, including income verification to make sure the alien does not become a burden to society, then the paperwork is sent to the country where the alien is resident and that alien fills out the DS 160 and other forms. with the 9/11 hijackers, they came through Canada. I don't see it as a problem, but an opportunity for both government and business. All e verify does is verify the I-9 which every dependent employee fills out. It was meant to show the complexity of illegal immigration with polices that will affect US citizens for better or worse.
It's controlled. Go on an international flight and return home, you will be going through a entry checkpoint. The checkpoints are located on the border and within 25 miles within the border.
It wasn't a question of endorsement, it was a question of failure of learning from history. In our glorious effort to remain safe, we put people into our versions of concentration camps all in the name of national security. With illegal immigrants, history is repeating itself.
Don't need to deport anyone, just penalize businesses who hire illegals. It'll sort itself out. - - - Updated - - - Suddenly we care about financial stability? We are $20 trillion in debt, and the cost of a wall is much less than the cost of welfare benefits to 30 million illegals (and the generations that come after) who don't pay taxes.
Yeah, I do care about financial stability, and I'm not sure I agree with you that a 2,000 mile wall would be cheaper to build and maintain than the cost of welfare to illegals, or that this wall would truly have any significant effect of illegal immigration.
Only on a very few cases. Usually, the refer the case to the Mexican federal officials. If they are arrested in Mexico, they could be extradicted back to the United States.
