Why isn't repbulican congress fixing immigration?

Explain how the current immigration law is racism.

 

Maybe next time you should understand what is being counted as a deportation. Your numbers show removals only, so what about the returns? You see, this is where my chart includes returns along with removals for "total" deportations.

 

If you understood anything it should be that Obama changed policy and began charging those caught at the border with EWI, therefor increasing his total removals, while reducing his interior removals by over 50%. Those border crossers being charged is something that no other president had done, they were simply returns by other presidents and why Obama admits his removal numbers are deceptive.

 

There is no "due process" in Immigration Court, nor are they afforded an attorney.

 

EWI is a crime, it is a class 4 federal misdemeanor when charged and convicted. A second EWI is a class 6 federal felony.

Institutional racism? How so?

That is annual "removals" by 20% not annual deportations. Deportations also include returns. And as Obama admits his policy change has deceptively increased his removal numbers by charging all EWI's with illegal entry.

 

No, he has not clearly stated he will not sign republican legislation, he as stated he will not sign specific legislation aimed at specific issues. I do believe that is the prerogative of all presidents, at least that is what it says in the constitution. He has not declared he will engage in a coordinated strategy of obstruction of all republican initiatives. Now if only the republicans can get their heads out of their fundaments and actually pass some meaningful legislation that actually address the real problems confronting the nation instead of grandstanding and blaming Obama for not getting anything done.


Yeah just enforce the current laws, despite the fact that the current laws seem to have failed on more than one front. Look at how good a job has been done in the past 20 years or so.

 

And guess what, there always has been war, except its not an exclusive condition of Islam, if one simply reviews European history for the past couple thousand years.

Funny tho, it seems Europeans can't quite understand that the various wars with muslims (with one or two notable exceptions) all occurred in Muslim lands. something about the euro doctrines of imperialism and colonialism.

 

You claimed "Islam is always going to be at war either openly or secretly with all non Muslims" (fragment to help identify the full quote). That would indicate a lot of wars - or fewer but longer wars.

And, considering that you were mentioning Ottoman expansionism, I pointed to Germany and Japan - cases of expansionism that more than match your example.

Plus, your examples of ISIS and AQ don't support your claims. OBL stated that his objective with AQ was to get the USA out of Saudi Arabia - it was a reaction to the USA, not to the Qur'an. And, ISIS is clearly a reaction to catastrophic western mistakes with the religious claims being rejected by Islam as a whole.

Iran doesn't support your thesis even slightly. WWII hugely impacted Iran. Then, we overthrew the hugely popular government headed by the duly elected Mohammad Mosaddegh, installing the Shah who became more and more autocratic. The subsequent revolution can not be suggested to have anything to do with expansionism. And, to say we were innocent is ludicrous.

Yes - the west meddled in Iraq and did a fabulously bad job of it.

Remember that I responded to your claims of perpetual war from Islam.

Now, you seem to recognize that Iraq, too, was a problem of western creation - good.

I'm not trying to paper over the radicalism that has sprung up and must be opposed, but resisting western power has not been easily accomplished. Would the Ayatollahs have risen to power in Iran without the western meddling from WWII through our overthrow of government and installation of the Shah? I really doubt it, as their elected government was highly popular. Would AQ exist without the US military support and western dollars provided to the hugely repressive government of Saudi Arabia? Again, I doubt it. Would Palestinian refugee camps be suppliers of AQ suicide bombers if we weren't supporting the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Israel? I doubt it. Would ISIS exist if we hadn't purged Sunnis from political, civil service and military positions throughout Iraq and hadn't picked a leader whose direction included disenfranchisement and violence to Sunni civilians? I doubt it.

Therefore, we can't just write off these situations as being no more than what to expect from Islam. They also come from what to expect from the west, and what to expect from humans under extreme conditions.

 

Well of course that true if you avoid the first thousand years of Islams existence or buy into their theory that any land with a Muslim in it is Muslim land.

 

Most interference in Islamic affairs came about as a response to the recurrent theme of Islamic Radicalism. This was true until the discovery of Oil in Islamic lands in the 1930's. As for length? The State of war that sort of ended outside the Gates of Vienna began with the Assault on Constantinople that began nearly 130 years earlier and saw most of the Balkans fall under Turkish control. Please note Various Islamic Radicals had been attacking Constantinople and it's various poseession in Asia minor for nearly 650 years prior to its fall in the mid 1400's

 

It's better to say what our law says directly than to propose a whole new world of law.

One of the largest problems with moving forward on this issue is that the basic facts are either unknown or ignored. The problem is being addressed with emotionalism.

If being here without documentation were a crime, there would be a number of important ramifications. For example, deportation hearings would become criminal trials with the accused having rights of representation, rules of evidence, options for jury trial, etc.

Whether you think driving fast is the same level of behavior is just your opinion.

 

No, you can not just claim that expansionism in that time period came from "Various Islamic Radicals" and have that mean something.

You can not claim that expansionism was something exceptional in that time period, either.

Again, you choose to ignore Germany, Japan, China, Russia, UK in the more modern era as well as Rome, Macedonia (and the conquest of Persia) and numerous others previous.

In fact, our attempts to align the world and cause the stability that is good for our trade is a modern form of world domination. For example, our objectives with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq and others has had little if anything to do with what is best for the people and a whole lot to do with what is advantageous for our trade and economy. We just have had the power to achieve objectives without necessarily having to conquer and hold land.

 

Good so far.

Immigration court doesn't afford the immigrant with an attorney Immigration court does not fall under the judicial branch of govt, it is under the executive branch, therefor what constitutional protections that one may be entitled to if charged with an infamous crime, they are not afforded the same entitlements in immigration court. If they want a lawyer they can provide one themselves.

 

Yep, that sure is a medieval religious/political "policy". OTOH, it may surprise you to find out that Islam also spread peacefully throughout huge swaths of Africa and Asia.

I completely understand the eurochristian emotional perspective of Islam as an enemy of their own one true god. Its been a cultural attitude since around 630 or so. And vice versa of course.

 

That's what I said.

If it were criminal, it would be in criminal court and full criminal proceedings would be brought to bear - lawyers, juries, etc.

 

They wanted a refund despite clear signs of having used it irresponsibly for purposes it was never intended, and they couldn't produce a receipt to show that they had ever paid for it in the first place.

 

EWI is criminal, its just not done through a judicial criminal court. Immigration court is an executive criminal court.

 

And yet, you have still been unable to account for the fact that the "TOTAL IMMIGRANT POPULATION" during Bush's eight years was 10.6 million according to Politifact, while you told me he deported a total of 10.6 million. Are you not yet understanding, that if that were really true, I wouldn't have seen thousands upon thousands of immigrants at the end of his eight years? This goes "WAY" beyond a change of policy by Obama. You first need to explain how Bush had a population of 10.6 million, while having a total of 10.6 million deported, and then see brown people walking around everywhere? You may want to go back and do some re-figuring with that math.

 

There's nothing to re-figure.
Your numbers are nothing but "removals" as I already stated and showed, the 10.3 Million are total deportations which are removals and returns. Obamas total deportations are just over 3.4 Million after 6 years. Do you still not understand that illegals still got through under presidents, not all were caught. Thus the number of deportations was still less than the total that made it through.

 

Dude, my numbers are not my numbers. They are your numbers, of which I posted from your own earlier quotes. I'm not disputing Obama has deported 3.4 million or whatever. What I'm trying for you to understand, is that Politifact said Bush had 10.6 million as a total immigrant population in the U.S. as an average during his eight years, not deportations, while you try and peddle the number 10.6 as deportations. Politifact says 10.6 as a total population here in the U.S., you say 10.6 deported. Someone by virtue of simple logic, has to be wrong. Who is it?

 

Who gives a damn about past numbers now!! The issue at hand is that something must be done and damn soon lest we turn into Mexico Norte, i.e., a Third World Hellhole.

 

Bush and the Right held Congress and took a stance on it. Then they started saying; It would end X amount of farms because so many use the cheap labor. THEY WERE PASSIVE WHEN IN CONTROL. The Right Wing stood up for immigrants. It's why they want a fence instead of enforced laws. They don't want to stop the current issue, they want to stop future issues. Remember who loves cheap labor.

 

The current immigration system allows for a ridiculously small number of legal entries. So few that they (literally) have an annual lottery for green cards. Why in the world is that the case? Why is legal immigration so grossly inadequate to the demand? Why are we trying to keep these people out in the first place? Why is a nation of immigrants turning its back to those seeking the same opportunities our own ancestors had? Why is it illegal for illegal immigrants to immigrate in the first place? Where is the public interest in trying to keep out construction workers, agricultural workers, janitorial and service workers, child care workers, and so on? The notion that immigrants take jobs from native born Americans is a ludicrous lie that's been refuted time and time again - it has no basis other than simple racism. Claims that immigrants are all murderers, rapists and drug dealers are overt racism. The best arguments for restricting immigration are paper thin rationalizations that fall apart if you sneeze at them. If there's any justification for excluding people that doesn't boil down to, "their skin is too dark," on closer examination, I have yet to hear it.

The fact is that the only reasonable conclusion is that the real motivation behind the current immigration law is simply keeping out brown people. It's fundamentally no different from overtly racist laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act.

No, returns are not deportations. As DHS explains:

"Return: Certain apprehended aliens who appear to be inadmissible or deportable may be offered the opportunity to voluntarily return to their home country in lieu of formal removal proceedings before an immigration judge. Generally, aliens waive their right to a hearing, remain in custody, and, if applicable, agree to depart the United States under supervision. Some aliens apprehended within the United States may agree to voluntarily depart and pay the expense of departing. Voluntary departure may be granted by an immigration judge, during an immigration hearing or prior to an immigration hearing by certain DHS officials."

"Removal: The compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal. An alien who is removed has administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry."​

As for Obama supposedly admitting that his removal figures are deceptive, I hope you'll forgive me for not taking your word for it. Given the Right's propensity for simply making crap up. (*cough* *cough* death panels *cough* *cough*) I'm going to have to ask you for a reference for that. Fair warning: CIS is an anti-immigration PAC so citing them alone as a factual source will be met with well deserved mockery.

If you want to talk about deceptive figures, however, the claim that interior deportations have fallen by 50% under Obama is a prime example, highly dependent on carefully selected data sets. Interior deportations increased sharply from '07 to '09 (the last two years of Bush and the first year of Obama), stayed at about the same very high level as '09 through '10 and '11, and have been gradually decreasing since '12. In '14 they were about the same as '07, and much higher than years previous to '07. (source)

That's a really good point that hadn't occurred to me. I imagine two other important ramifications of deportations being handled by the criminal justice system would be the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

My point about speeding was that like illegal entry, it's a misdemeanor, not a major crime. It wasn't my intention to imply a moral judgement on their relative severity.

My opinion is that it's generally better to address what someone means rather than the way they're phrasing it. I tend to take a linguistic view of meaning rather than a legal one.

Yes, because obviously letting brown people into the country is far more likely to turn the US into a "third World Hellhole" than, oh say, underfunding infrastructure for decades in order to give tax breaks to the ultra wealthy until bridges are falling down.

And then you wonder why Latinos don't vote Republican.

 

Your post is a complete & utter fail. I live in a predominately Latino city (over 90%). Their culture is one of corruption & vice. Ask yourself why 43 of the 50 most dangerous cities on Earth are Latino. Our ancestors knew this and treated them as such. We admitted few until that fat, drunken, incompetent swine Ted Kennedy got the immigration laws changed in '65. Our heritage is Anglo European and not from a corrupt Spain. Why do you think these two countries fought wars for centuries? Clue phone ringing.

 

Wrong. Islam began as an Army and stayed that way though out almost all of it's early history. Peaceful conversions happened almost always because the people converted rather than take on that army of religious crazies just over the horizon.

- - - Updated - - -

And I remember DU saying the same thing after the first Bush election... People on the outside looking in regardless of political suasion always talk like that.