# Will president Trump's jackbooted thugs go door to door searching for illegals?



## Londoner (Mar 11, 2016)

Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?


----------



## Lakhota (Mar 11, 2016)

Londoner said:


> Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?



Would not surprise me!  Adolf Trump is bringing back the old days of George Wallace.  Actually, Trump is more dangerous than Wallace.  He's clearly the most dangerous presidential candidate in my lifetime.  Sad...


----------



## sarahgop (Mar 11, 2016)

Would be  nice  if we actuallt tried  enforcing the  law  for  once.


----------



## Lakhota (Mar 11, 2016)

sarahgop said:


> Would be  nice  if we actuallt tried  enforcing the  law  for  once.



What "constitutional" laws are not being enforced?


----------



## sarahgop (Mar 11, 2016)

Londoner said:


> Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?




Seems to me the  jackbooted thugs are the  ones  in the streets tonight. please give some examples of trump supporters disrupting  anyones event? the left  are nazis and you  know that.

By the  way, doesnt  your  nazi admin want to prosecute people for  opposing the  climate change  hoax? Nazism is alive and well on the  left, as you  well know. You simply  cant  cite an example  of anones event  being  disrupted  by trump supporters.

 *Ann Coulter* ‏@*AnnCoulter*  7m7 minutes ago


Can you image 100s of Trump supporters swarming a Sanders rally, engaging in mass violence & being referred to by the MSM as "protestors"?


----------



## sarahgop (Mar 11, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> sarahgop said:
> 
> 
> > Would be  nice  if we actuallt tried  enforcing the  law  for  once.
> ...


Immigration law. If you could quit defending your  nazi admin for a sec, lets  just  try  enforcing  existing  law.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 11, 2016)

Londoner said:


> Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?



  All I want to know is where I sign up for the Jack Booted Thug Brigade....
They say it's always best to get in at the ground floor...


----------



## sarahgop (Mar 11, 2016)

the  jackboot  nazis  in the  obama admin are the  ones to fear.


----------



## SuperDemocrat (Mar 11, 2016)

Londoner said:


> Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?



Why not?  We do the same for any other crime in this country.  Just because you are doing dope inside your house doesn't mean the cops won't try to try you for it.  Maybe we ought to buy illegals an iphone and watch the left defend their right to privacy as much they defend someone's right to come here illegally.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 11, 2016)

Londoner said:


> Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?


Fortunately there won't be a 'president' Trump come 2017.


----------



## sarahgop (Mar 11, 2016)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?
> ...



ask loretta  lynch, i imagine  she  is a  nazi as she wants to use govt  power to imprison people for  opposing  her.


----------



## sarahgop (Mar 11, 2016)

does everyone agree  obama  is a  jackboot  nazi?


----------



## Lakhota (Mar 11, 2016)

The History News Network writes of the forebears of Trump, that include not just Wallace and McCarthy, but Henry Ford, Father Charles Coughlin and Reverend Gerald L.K. Smith.

The _New York Time_s writes that “every generation or so, at least one demagogue surfaces to fan” the flames of racism.

New York Times Compares Trump To Wallace, McCarthy | alan.com

Adolf Trump is a very scary dude.  Actually, I think he's more like Hitler.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Mar 11, 2016)

I dont want to join the jackbooted thug brigade

I don't like boots

can I just be in the thug brigade?


----------



## Vigilante (Mar 11, 2016)

Londoner said:


> Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?



I certainly hope so!!!!!


----------



## sarahgop (Mar 11, 2016)

Didnt  nazis murder alot  of  people? lets see, obamas  nazi horde idolizies the  systematic extermination of the  unborn


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 11, 2016)

sarahgop said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Londoner said:
> ...



  I think you're trying to sign me up with the wrong Jack Booted Thug Brigade.
And while my comment was somewhat tongue in cheek....


----------



## sarahgop (Mar 11, 2016)

Two Thumbs said:


> I dont want to join the jackbooted thug brigade
> 
> I don't like boots
> 
> can I just be in the thug brigade?


Sure,  join loretta  lynches thug  brigade and  march to kill the  unborn and  imprison people to disagree with her. she  makes stalin seem like a  nice  person


----------



## Preacher (Mar 11, 2016)

Londoner said:


> Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?


Fine with me. I know of several right here in my neighborhood! I will volunteer to help!


----------



## Old Yeller (Mar 11, 2016)

sarahgop said:


> the  jackboot  nazis  in the  obama admin are the  ones to fear.




BHO started bashing Police early on ( Cambridge, Connecticut).  He pushed riots at OWS, Trayvon, BALT, CHI, Ferguson, Cleve...........on and on and on.  HE is the problem.  The Commie playbook 100%


----------



## Lakhota (Mar 11, 2016)

sarahgop said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > sarahgop said:
> ...



How are "immigration laws" not being enforced?


----------



## sarahgop (Mar 11, 2016)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> sarahgop said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...


sorry, i may be mistaken but the  only  jackboots i see are  in the streets tonight and  in the  obama  admin


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 11, 2016)

Two Thumbs said:


> I dont want to join the jackbooted thug brigade
> 
> I don't like boots
> 
> can I just be in the thug brigade?



   You can wear eight inch stilettos if ya want to....those things are F'n dangerous.


----------



## Vigilante (Mar 11, 2016)

sarahgop said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > I dont want to join the jackbooted thug brigade
> ...


----------



## Lakhota (Mar 11, 2016)

Odium said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?
> ...



Several what - jackbooted thugs or illegals?  Either way, I'm glad I don't live in your neighborhood.


----------



## sarahgop (Mar 11, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> sarahgop said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...


employers arent  being fined for  hiring  illegals and we arent  securing the  border. loreeta  lynch is a  jackboot, i know you agree with me


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 11, 2016)

sarahgop said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > sarahgop said:
> ...



   And I see that as a problem....as in it's time to up the anti with these BLM dickheads.


----------



## sarahgop (Mar 11, 2016)

Vigilante said:


> sarahgop said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


nazis and stalinists do enjoy  exterminating large groups  of  people. whan some  jackass accuses trump supporters  of  being  jackboots, even though they  disrupt no nes events, it riles  me. its a liberal sacrament  oexterminate the  unborn.


----------



## sarahgop (Mar 11, 2016)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> sarahgop said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...


I think even lakota would call them loretta  lynch jackboots. Here is the  bottom line, trump supporters disrupt  no ones events.


----------



## Old Yeller (Mar 11, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> How are "immigration laws" not being enforced?




He pulled the border patrol off Federal lands,  wide open spots in Texas.  He put them running daycare for the 50K per month coming by train.  Mothers raped and pushed over border with kids.  Mexico knows nothing.  Catch and release (court date two years out) like fishing for bass.  You must come legally or get deported.   Commie playbook,  overwhelm the system.


----------



## Lakhota (Mar 11, 2016)

Will Trump incite another civil war?


----------



## Lakhota (Mar 11, 2016)

sarahgop said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > sarahgop said:
> ...



History proves that Jews learned the hard way the cost of not disrupting Hitler's events before he rose to power.  Maybe if Jews had been more proactive - the German people wouldn't have been so passive and allowed Hitler to rise to power.


----------



## Agit8r (Mar 11, 2016)

Don't give the Drumpfisti ideas


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 11, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> Will Trump incite another civil war?



  We can hope.
But I dont think it's going to play out like you think it will....


----------



## Old Yeller (Mar 11, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> Will Trump incite another civil war?




No, Trump has done nothing illegal or wrong.  but BHO has the rest of the year to get his  thugs to start Civil War as he desires, part of the plan.


----------



## Lakhota (Mar 11, 2016)

num_nut said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Will Trump incite another civil war?
> ...



Abortions are legal.  Do you approve of them?


----------



## Old Yeller (Mar 11, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> Either way, I'm glad I don't live in your neighborhood.




Wide open,  Chief running mouth.  Wide open.  too easy.  He is glad you don't live there too!


----------



## Old Yeller (Mar 11, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> Abortions are legal. Do you approve of them?



No.  After those body part videos,  sick twisted White hags sipping white wine talking murder and scrap the parts.  Too much for me.


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 11, 2016)

You leftist are some of the slimiest in this country. you see these protesters trying to shut down other peoples freedom to hear from someone who is running for President. and you sit here and accuse trump of having jackboots. You idiots actually think this is going to help you with how Obama has nearly killed the Democrat party from acting like a thug the whole eight years in office. all you're doing is HELPING in electing a republican and I hope drive more people away from the nasty slimy party calling themselves the, Democrat party


----------



## Lakhota (Mar 11, 2016)

num_nut said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Abortions are legal. Do you approve of them?
> ...



Oh, you mean those "doctored" videos that have been proven to be "fake"...?  You still believe that shit?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 11, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> num_nut said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



  Personally I think they should put up a 24 hour Quicky Abortion Mart on every exit road from the RES.


----------



## Old Yeller (Mar 11, 2016)

25-40 thousand going to an Event disrupted by 1000 leftitst loons.  Some waited 5 hours in line to be sent packing.  Nothing billy club to knee cap can't fix.  Don't let them disrupt civil society.  Get 40' shipping trailers and stuff them in there by the hundreds till problem out of way.  Few nuts cannot take over cities,  it can grow to huge mob, riot, war.


----------



## Old Yeller (Mar 11, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> Oh, you mean those "doctored" videos that have been proven to be "fake"...? You still believe that shit?



leftist talking points never stop.  had huge post written,  dumped it.  Go back and drink your Fire Water.


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 11, 2016)

You get rid of one troll and another takes its place. now you have lakhota hitting everyone's post with smile faces. I'd like to shut that feature off. if anyone know how to do it, please let me know. they have ruined this board now it's just another leftist romper room filled with hateful people


----------



## Lakhota (Mar 11, 2016)

Adolf Trump is whining his ass off.  I've been listening to him whine on CNN and MSNBC about the Chicago event.  *Trump instigates this shit - and then plays the VICTIM.* Sadly funny...


----------



## sarahgop (Mar 11, 2016)

num_nut said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, you mean those "doctored" videos that have been proven to be "fake"...? You still believe that shit?
> ...



Im just sorry  to see  so many loretta  lynch jackboots  on the street  tonight


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Mar 11, 2016)

Londoner said:


> Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?



My question is:  Do we owe them anything not to do that?


----------



## sarahgop (Mar 11, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> Adolf Trump is whining his ass off.  I've been listening to him whine on CNN and MSNBC about the Chicago event.  *Trump instigates this shit - and then plays the VICTIM.* Sadly funny...


Wha?? whose events  have trumps supporters disrupted? loretta  lynch is a  nazi.


----------



## Lakhota (Mar 11, 2016)

Adolf Trump and his thugs are dangerous to America and the world.


----------



## OKTexas (Mar 11, 2016)

sarahgop said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > sarahgop said:
> ...



You forgot issuing work permits to people not legally eligible for them.


----------



## Old Yeller (Mar 11, 2016)

I have always said,  start with the ones in Jail, probation or await trial.  You got prints and pics, ID.  When you find them,  off they go to jail "down there".  If "down there" lets them out, they won't get back in over wall.  That takes care of probably millions of them.   Then you see who else you can round up.

Then go after Visa overstays..........pretty soon you may have some good ones left? case by case?


----------



## Vigilante (Mar 11, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> Adolf Trump and his thugs are dangerous to America and the world.


----------



## sarahgop (Mar 11, 2016)

When will Adoph lynchs  nazis go door to door  to murder those who think their climate change crap is a hoax?


----------



## Lakhota (Mar 11, 2016)

sarahgop said:


> When will Adoph lynchs  nazis go door to door  to murder those who think their climate change crap is a hoax?



You just further prove why Adolf Trump loves the "poorly educated"...


----------



## OKTexas (Mar 11, 2016)

num_nut said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > How are "immigration laws" not being enforced?
> ...



No that's Clive and Piven.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 11, 2016)

Too bad both of your sides are absurd.  You people are so caught up in party politics that you can't see past your own noses.  How sad.


----------



## Lakhota (Mar 11, 2016)

Did Trump set this whole Chicago thing up?


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 11, 2016)

No one missed it when lakhota wasn't around and dang it's back with their normal spewing


----------



## Vigilante (Mar 11, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> Did Trump set this whole Chicago thing up?



He doesn't work well with rioting Chimps...This bitch does though!


----------



## Old Yeller (Mar 11, 2016)

I don't see both sides?  I missed the whole thing.  I heard some news, Trump talking.  Sounds like some loons forced way into event and started up some crap?  heard big group outside of event taunting citizens going to a planned event?


----------



## sarahgop (Mar 11, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> Did Trump set this whole Chicago thing up?



I wish i had suggested  it. I hope Adolph  Lynch doesnt  come to murder me  in a  concentration camp for thinking she  is a crapload  of  vomit.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 11, 2016)

Jackboot thugs


----------



## OKTexas (Mar 11, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Too bad both of your sides are absurd.  You people are so caught up in party politics that you can't see past your own noses.  How sad.



Really, you got a bunch of dumb MFs out there demanding equality while intending to deny it to others. The people going to the rally had just as much right to be there, and attend unmolested, as the protesters.


----------



## OKTexas (Mar 11, 2016)

The people who organized that BS on facebook should be prosecuted for conspiracy to breach the peace.


----------



## sarahgop (Mar 11, 2016)

Personally, i think loretta  lynch should  be  in prison for wanting to imprison people who disgree with her  policies.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 11, 2016)

Lakhota, you are blowing against the wind. Trump supporters don't give a rat's ass about the constitution. They would dispense with it, as long as such dispensation did not apply to their own rights.


----------



## sarahgop (Mar 11, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Lakhota, you are blowing against the wind. Trump supporters don't give a rat's ass about the constitution. They would dispense with it, as long as such dispensation did not apply to their own rights.


Wait, is it  constitutional for nazi lynch to murder people for disagreeing  with her? Is she stalin reincarnated?


----------



## Lakhota (Mar 11, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Lakhota, you are blowing against the wind. Trump supporters don't give a rat's ass about the constitution. They would dispense with it, as long as such dispensation did not apply to their own rights.



Amen!  The Constitution is only relevant when it supports their agenda!


----------



## Lakhota (Mar 11, 2016)

sarahgop said:


> Personally, i think loretta  lynch should  be  in prison for wanting to imprison people who disgree with her  policies.



Sounds like AG Lynch owns you.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 11, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Lakhota, you are blowing against the wind. Trump supporters don't give a rat's ass about the constitution. They would dispense with it, as long as such dispensation did not apply to their own rights.



You got a "winner" for that post.  Wow.  Lol.


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 11, 2016)

the left is getting desperate. now they are taking the side of illegal invader of our country over you the legal citizens for their dirty politics. get that low down title?


----------



## Manonthestreet (Mar 11, 2016)

Govt alrdy knows where they are....we send them checks.......duh


----------



## Muhammed (Mar 11, 2016)

Londoner said:


> Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?


No but what he should do is put the illegal aliens to work in prison camps making aggregate for the massive amounts of concrete needed to build the border wall.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 11, 2016)

We really need to get both the dems and reps out of power.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 11, 2016)

Londoner said:


> Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?


This hyperbole only shows ignorance. Trump has stated when illegals come into contact with law enforcement they will get deported, some may have to wait until they serve out their sentence. He has also stated he will institute E-verify, which will limit their ability to work, forcing some to simply return back home. Hopefully he institutes Employer checks again like Bush did, and he wants to do away with Sanctuary Cities like SF.

Cruz has stated pretty much the same thing. Rubio wants to still give them amnesty once it is "proven" to the public that illegal entry and visa overstays are under control.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 11, 2016)

E verify doesn't matter if they hire them UNDER THE TABLE.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 11, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?
> ...



Trump said those things? Well, then. It must have been Trump's _evil twin_ who said that he would deport 12 million illegal immigrants in the first two years of his office. Does the REAL Trump think that all 12 million illegal immigrants are going to "come in contact with law enforcement" in the first 2 years of his presidency, or is that his evil twin talking again? Unless he plans on unreasonable search and seizures, which is prohibited under constitutional law, he must assume that all 12 million illegal immigrants are going to be arrested while in the act of some criminal activity (and being "undocumented" is not a criminal activity).

As I said, neither Trump, nor his followers give a rat's ass about the constitution.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> E verify doesn't matter if they hire them UNDER THE TABLE.


Look to the states that instituted E-verify, what happened to all the illegals in those states?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > E verify doesn't matter if they hire them UNDER THE TABLE.
> ...



Nothing.  We have E Verify in Massachusetts.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Londoner said:
> ...


If the laws on the books are enforced 12 million in 2 years is doable. The great thing about illegals is their constitutional protections are limited. Being in violation of orders of deportation (40%) is an infraction, EWI (60%) is a Federal Misdemeanor/felony dependent on prior EWI convictions. All can have warrants instituted against them.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Alabama immigration: crops rot as workers vanish to avoid crackdown
Alabama disagrees along with the other states that made E-verify mandatory. 

Mass doesn't mandate e-verify, e-verify is only required at the govt level, private business doesn't have to use it if they don't contract with the govt.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



And how does Donald propose we pay for this?  Do you realize the back log of cases there would be?  Our court system is already clogged up!  Is he going to raise taxes?  What's the plan?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Those employers who are not willing to pay for American workers should go out of business.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Back log of cases? EWI's can be sent packing, visa overstays with orders against them can be sent as well unless they have a legitimate claim of fear in their home country that would warrant them receiving a refugee or asylum status. If they want to obtain attorneys it is their right but immigration court doesn't require we give them attorneys. Most EWI's sign a waiver form admitting they EWI, so....


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


I agree, they should if the person that hired the illegals knowingly hired them. If the illegals presented documentation that passed the requirements of the I-9 form, than how do you punish the employer? Which is why E-verify should be mandated nation wide.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



What are you talking about?  You don't make any sense!  You have to pay for manpower.  You have to pay to house them while they await their . . . whatever your silly plan is!  

I'm against illegal immigration, but you have to have a PLAN that makes some sense!!!


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



It is illegal NOW to hire illegals under the table.  ???  How is E verify going to change that?  Most often these people are going towards construction/landscaping industries, or crop picking in places like CA.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Have to house them? Why? EWI's don't need to wait around for a hearing, they aren't entitled to one, our laws allow for them to sign an admission of guilt which allows them to be deported immediately. Visa overstays with orders against them have already had their day in court and lost. They can also be deported immediately.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



And HOW are you going to "deport" millions of people?


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


I know all about CA, I live here. It is small companies that hire illegals, and those small companies are then contracted by larger companies. In the majority of cases it is their own ethnicity that hires them illegally. The IRS should be doing a better job conducting business audits.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


The same way they are now, by bus, plane, and train.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



And THAT costs money too!!!  Good grief.  So . . . your solution is just "deport them!"  Well, if that was feasible, why hasn't anyone else done it?  Because it is NOT feasible or affordable.  That's why.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

You gonna have to do better and have a PLAN, and outline it and outline the costs, and who is going to pay?  The taxpayers.  Be ready for your taxes to go through the roof.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

NOTHING is free.  N-O-T-H-I-N-G.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 12, 2016)

Trump is going to wave his magic wand, and overcome this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Everything costs money, they decrease the GDP by over $14B per year, that will increase as they are removed. Better allocation of funds to the departments, cut the waste.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



I've come to the realization that you really don't know what you're talking about and you have been brainwashed by the Trump machine.  We need realistic solutions.  Not your pie in the sky fantasies.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Trump is going to wave his magic wand, and overcome this:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html


Why would he overcome it? It is what Bush did and what Obama does.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


You can come to any realization you want, your issue seems to be your perceived costs of doing it while failing to recognize the costs that illegals already cost us. The faster they are removed the less they will cost us and burden us. You claim to be against illegals, yet you give NO realistic solution of your own, criticizing is easy.

Your realistic idea seems to be, grant them legalization so they are no longer illegal, problem solved until they immediately go on welfare since they work under the table they realistically have no income.

Brainwashed by the Trump machine? I've been in the illegal immigration debates for the past 15 years, long before Trump. I have been through the immigration process more than once with workers and a wife from Europe. SMFH


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



It's not MY job to give solutions.  I am not running for president.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



You do realize that this is probably NEVER going to happen?  Right?  Don't delude yourself please.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Trump is going to wave his magic wand, and overcome this:
> ...



You may have overlooked the fact that every one of these people has to be found guilty in a court of law, and the system is totally maxed out.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Lucky us. YAY!


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


It has been happening since 2005, did you not read vandleshandle's link? It just needs to be expanded from the border.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Grow up, tard.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Okay, Mr. Delusional.  You will see.  Mark my words.  NOT going to happen.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


They don't have to be found guilty in a court of law, they can be given waivers. Those caught at the border can be fingerprinted, photographed, and then returned back across with no court appearance required.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Tard? That's all you got now is name calling? Your reputation is well suited.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



And that's free too, right?  Lol.  Delusions.  If you believe this is anything but empty words for votes, then you are a very silly person.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Truth hurts.  You are just another partisan hack.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


It is happening and has been happening for some time, it only needs to be expanded from the border courts.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Want to bet?  I'll bet you money that it is not going to happen.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Nothing is free, are you contempt with paying for them now? As more come you will continue to pay more while your wages decrease and your cost of living goes up. Its your choice.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Am I "contempt?"  Lol.  Like I said, it's not going to happen.  You will see, and yes, I will rub it in your face when it does NOT happen.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


It has been happening, try reading the link. It only needs to be expanded from the border courts to internal courts, and its something the President can do via memo/policy changes to USCIS.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

There is only ONE thing that is going to help us in this situation, and that is to make the penalties MORE expensive to hire illegals (if caught) than it would be profitable to the business.  Then, there will still be those who don't get caught, or at least for a while.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Sorry English Professor, hands get going typing, "content". SMFH Rub whatever you think you need to if it gets you off, I don't care really what you think.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



I will be laughing at you for being taken as a fool.  That's what you are . . . foolish.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> There is only ONE thing that is going to help us in this situation, and that is to make the penalties MORE expensive to hire illegals (if caught) than it would be profitable to the business.  Then, there will still be those who don't get caught, or at least for a while.


I agree, but you have to prove the employer hired them knowingly. In most cases the large companies that were done under by Bush it was the HR department that hired those of their ethnicity illegally, and it was those in the HR department charged, to which the company itself wasn't liable.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Let's see, I'm a tard and a fool now. YAY! SMFH


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > There is only ONE thing that is going to help us in this situation, and that is to make the penalties MORE expensive to hire illegals (if caught) than it would be profitable to the business.  Then, there will still be those who don't get caught, or at least for a while.
> ...



That shouldn't matter. The company is responsible for the actions of it's employees on the job.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


No most companies, i.e. corporations, are not responsible for the actions of its employees on the job. I'm beginning to think you have no experience in business let alone economics or immigration matters.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Lol.  YES they are.  You cannot be serious!


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



So . . . you think if the personnel department hires illegals, then the company can just say, well it's not OUR fault???


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Hilarious!


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Do I think that? NO, it's the laws on the books. A small owner operator type company can hire a temp agency that sends out its persons to work, they could be illegals for all the owner knows, yet he is not responsible for hiring them since he hired an employment agency whom he pays, guess what, the owner isn't liable for the agencies employees. So now you have to go after the agency, and if the illegals presented documents that conformed to the I-9 requirements how are you going to hold the agency responsible for hiring illegals knowingly?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

If a UPS driver hits and kills someone and it is found that he or she is an unlicensed driver . . . UPS gets sued.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



They are STILL responsible.  Yes they are.  Lol.  It is the company's responsibility to make sure that everything is on the up and up.  If not, they risk getting sued, same goes for any legalities.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Temp agency would ALSO get in trouble, but so would the hiring company.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


NO, Corporations are not responsible for the actions of their employees. IFCO senior managers plead guilty to unlawful employment of illegal aliens
Tyson Foods Acquitted Of Illegal Hiring


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



IF the personnel goes AGAINST a company policy, then perhaps, but that is very "iffy" ground and an entirely different situation.  The company is still responsible for safeguarding.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Temp agency would ALSO get in trouble, but so would the hiring company.


Nope, neither would unless they knowingly hire illegals. If the illegal presents the required I-9 documentation, then the company is off the hook, unless the company fails to send in the I-9 documentation within 30 days, which could take up to 9 months to receive back from the IRS to determine the eligibility of the worker. E-verify makes it immediate during the hiring process and if the documents come back as fraudulent or stolen then the person should be denied the job.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Safeguarding is different all together, the employer, corporation or whatever is responsible if the employee were to be in an accident or cause damage, etc. If the HR department goes outside the guidelines then how can you hold the company itself responsible?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Temp agency would ALSO get in trouble, but so would the hiring company.
> ...



You are completely missing the point.  We were talking about employers who knowingly hire illegals under the table to boost their profit margin, weren't we?  E Verify is going to do nothing in that situation, right?  Those employees are NOT on the books.  Construction and landscape companies are infamous for this.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Now you are changing your prior claim and recognizing that what has been shown and stated is in fact, fact.. Good.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



This is like saying that if your company does drug testing, and you do drugs and kill somebody while on the job, the company is not going to be sued.  That is incorrect.  Those CEOs of Tyson were LUCKY or they knew someone with clout, which wouldn't be surprising with a HUGE company like Tyson.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Nope, go back and read my posts about how employers knowingly hire illegals under the table.  What good is E verify then?  Did you forget already?


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


They were brought up, and yes the Construction Industry and Green Industry are infamous for hiring off the books, which is why I stated IRS needed to audit more companies, previously.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



They need to make it so that it is not worth it for the company to hire illegals.  Currently, obviously, the penalties against employers for doing so are not harsh enough.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Because employees are representatives of the company.  The company is responsible for making sure these things are NOT going on.  If you have employees working for you that do not speak or understand English????  You know damn well the chances are good that they are illegal.  Pleading "ignorance" is only going to get you so far unless you are a well connected company, which Tyson probably is.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Tyson did exactly what I said, collected the required I-9 information from the employee, they did what the law mandates them to do, the IRS screwed the pooch on that, not Tyson. Again, if E-verify were mandated a large corporation like this wouldn't have been in this predicament, as the forged documents wouldn't pass, immediately being rejected by the system.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Okay, I agree with that, but we were talking about companies that knowingly hire illegals and how the punishments are not harsh enough to deter them from doing so.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


I agree, provided they are shown to have knowingly hired the illegals. E-verify would stop the hiring via large companies such as Tyson, the issue then becomes the small owner operator companies and employment agencies.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

If Tyson HAD gotten into a lot of trouble, you can bet they would make SURE it doesn't happen again!


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


There are many legal immigrants that come here and don't speak English, how do you determine if they are legal or illegal without stereotyping? Which is why it is usually those of their own ethnicity that hire the illegals under the table or forge documents for them as was the case of another HR department of a large corporation, to which those in the HR were held accountable for and not the company itself.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> If Tyson HAD gotten into a lot of trouble, you can bet they would make SURE it doesn't happen again!


I'm pretty sure they are already making sure it doesn't happen again, the publicity wasn't good for them the first time.

Look to the Swift Raids, the largest workplace immigration raid in U.S. history.
Swift raids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The good thing out of it was all the job openings that came about, where there was a very long line of people willing to take the place of the illegals no longer there. Legal employees going back to work, which is what they/we need.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 12, 2016)

The thugs are from the left, per usual.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> The thugs are from the left, per usual.



You're a trumpster???  I must say, I'm quite surprised by that!  Lol.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > The thugs are from the left, per usual.
> ...


No. Will president Trump's jackbooted thugs go door to door searching for illegals?


> Cruz has stated pretty much the same thing. Rubio wants to still give them amnesty once it is "proven" to the public that illegal entry and visa overstays are under control.


I'll vote for whichever of Trump or Cruz is the nominee. At this point in time it doesn't look good for Cruz.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



I was asking Unkotare.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > The thugs are from the left, per usual.
> ...






When did I say that?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 12, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



That's why I'm asking.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...










No.


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 12, 2016)

this op should seek some help. they are losing it. go look at their other threads.

this thread title is disgusting from someone who claims to be an American.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Don't give up your day job to become a lawyer. Nobody can be deported unles:
1. They are convicted in a court of law of being in the country illegally, or
2. They VOLUNTARILY give up that right and agree to be deported without a trial, which means that they are not guilty of any prior offenses the next time they do it.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Love the snide insults from people that think they know what they are talking about, when the reality of it is they only know half of what they think they know. SMFH

Those caught at the border can be returned with a simple fingerprint, photograph and/or a waiver. Those *charged* with EWI at the border (which is what Obama is doing at the border to increase his appearance of deporting more illegals than any other President in History) can be given a court appearance (see your own link for Operation Streamline) or offered the waiver which is an admission of guilt to which if they cross the border again they can be charged with a felony instead of the misdemeanor.

Visa overstays with order of deportation against them have already had their day in court and were denied, that's why they were ordered removed.

Again, illegals are limited in their constitutional protections, they have very, very  few.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Liquid, for Christ sake, you are saying exactly the same thing that I am saying except that I call it pleading "guilty" in a court of law, and you call it "offered a waiver". The fact is that it is a guilty plea, and the court has to find him guilty for him to be deported.

On the other hand, those crossing the border are often given the option of being driven back over the border with no trial, in which case, they also have no record of having done anything illegal..

I don't know what I am talking about? I live 30 miles from the Mexican border, and have attended Operation Streamline court sessions twice, personally.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 12, 2016)

Operation streamline

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 12, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



   There are many ways you could cover the costs.
Stop giving mexico money,start taxing monies sent back to mexico.
    Really the cheapest route would be to eliminate all types of gov assistance and make hiring an illegal to expensive with huge fines levied on business owners.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 12, 2016)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Here we go again. Another Trump supporter who thinks that the president has the authority to create a tax, regardless of the fact that the constitution says that only the House of Representatives can do that...not to mention that it would shut down trade with Mexico and cost American businesses billions of dollars.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 12, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



  So where did I say Trump was going to create a tax?
And mexico already costs the US billions so whats your point?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 12, 2016)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



Ok, so apparently you understand that Trump is lying when he says that he is going to establish taxes on money sent to Mexico, and violate congressionally approved NAFTA treaties by putting tariffs on Mexican products (which would be paid by American consumers when they buy those products). Welcome to the world of reality.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 12, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



  I dont have a problem paying more for US made products if it means jobs for Americans.
  How about you?


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 12, 2016)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> ...
> 
> There are many ways you could cover the costs.
> Stop giving mexico money.....





Think it through...


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 12, 2016)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



Well, then buy a Buick (It is going to be made in China) Or, buy a Kia (It is made in Georgia). Or, buy a Ford (It is made in Canada and Mexico). Me? I drive a Honda, because I am tired of the crap that GM has been selling me for 40 years. I also like fresh vegetables all year, and during the winter, 2/3rd of them come from Mexico. I shop at Walmart, over 90% of everything in the store is made outside America. Maybe you can buy one of Trump's shirts. They are made in Mexico. Personally, mine are made in Vietnam.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 12, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



  Our trade agreements are lopsided as hell.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 12, 2016)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



What? You disapprove of the fact that Vietnam officially has "most favored nation" trade status? I'm surprised that Trump hasn't insulted them yet, too!


----------



## Zander (Mar 12, 2016)

Treaties and trade deals are renegotiated all of the time. Only a jackass continues with a bad deal when he can renegotiate....


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Saying exactly the same thing? Then there was no need for your snide remark if all you are doing is repeating what I state. SMH

Returns are always fingerprinted and photographed and they also talk to an Immigration Officer if they choose to claim asylum. There is a record of their prior attempt if they are caught a second time, which is why they fingerprint and photograph them.

You seem to think all illegals can't be deported without first being found guilty in court, which isn't completely true, as they can sign a waiver and forgo the court all together, which, usually gets them out of custody much quicker, some go back home once deported, others turn around and try the next day to get back in. 

Possibilities for Reentry to the U.S. After Removal | Nolo.com


> If you do come back to the U.S. without permission after a removal order, the order could be “reinstated,” which is *a process that allows an immigration officer to send you back to the country to which you were previously deported without letting you see an immigration judge first.* Additionally, *you could be charged with the federal crime of illegal reentry.* But as discussed below, you can, if you have separate grounds upon which to request U.S. entry, apply for permission to return to the United States.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Nope. False again. Nobody in the US is guilty of a crime unless convicted in a court of law, including anyone who "signed a waiver" whatever the hell you are referring to by that. Look it up. You will find it in your 8th grade Civics text. Operation Streamline, which you argue is a procedure to deport without a criminal conviction is, in fact, a court of law, complete with a prosecutor, defence attorney, and a judge, as explained in my link, as a way to meet the constitutional requirements of a criminal conviction. Until, or unless that happens, no fingerprints, no, "Waiver", or anything else Trump can dream up, without a court conviction, can create a criminal record. These concepts are a package: Criminal charge, trial, criminal conviction, sentence, criminal record. None can be excluded. No one can become an "illegal alien" until a court determines that he broke a law. Until that moment, he is, at worst, an "undocumented alien"


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


No shit that Op Streamline is a court of law, it is in fact a criminal court and it is charging some EWI's with criminal activity as I already stated prior.

Again, you don't appear to know half of what you think you do, I just gave you a link that states that they can be deported without seeing a criminal court room at all and or convicted by a judge. Here is another link showing you to be wrong.

Overview of U.S. Deportation/Removal Proceedings - AllLaw.com


> Non-citizens have the right to a lawyer, as well as other rights under the U.S. Constitution. The immigration authorities cannot simply deport someone *without providing a chance to be heard*.
> 
> Of course, *the authorities often try to make the process go quickly, by asking the immigrant to sign something agreeing to depart without a hearing*. In some cases, when the immigrant really is in the U.S. illegally with no defense to removal, leaving voluntarily can be the best way to go, because it avoids having an order of deportation on one's record.


That chance to be heard merely allows for the EWI to claim asylum to which that individual is interviewed by and immigration officer to determine if that person actually has a claim for asylum, if no claim is found, that person can be deported from the country via Expedited Removal, again, no court room, no judge.

Here's another link
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/01/22/Expedited Removal - English (17).pdf


> There are several legal procedures DHS can use to remove you from the United States. This pamphlet is for individuals who are in Expedited Removal, Reinstatement of Removal or Administrative Removal. It does not apply to people in regular removal, deportation, or exclusion proceedings. You can tell what type of proceedings you are in by the document you should have received from DHS that explains the reasons why you may be removed from the U.S.



Or how about from CRS
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/54512.pdf


> Expedited removal, an immigration enforcement strategy originally conceived to operate at the borders and ports of entry,* is being expanded*, raising a set of policy, resource, and logistical questions. *Expedited removal is a provision under which an alien who lacks proper documentation or has committed fraud or willful misrepresentation of facts may be removed from the United States without any further hearings or review, unless the alien indicates a fear of persecution*. Congress added expedited removal to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in 1996, making it mandatory for arriving aliens, and *giving the Attorney General the option of applying it to aliens in the interior of the country who have not been admitted or paroled into the United States and who cannot affirmatively show that they have been physically present in the United States continuously for two years*. Until recently, expedited removal was only applied to aliens at ports of entry.



Surely you don't claim to know the law better than the laws themselves, do you? If you want to learn about immigration law, then don't claim to know things without backing up your claim and then telling me I am wrong when you have yet to begin to show that I am. Your words mean very little if you have no reputable links to back up those words.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 12, 2016)

Ok, Liquid. I am walking down the street, and I have no wallet. A cop approaches me, and asks for identification. I tell him I have none. he arrests me (without probable cause, which is unconstitutional). They take me in and give me a "waiver". I voluntarily give up *none* of my rights. They deport me, to....where....(My ancestors arrived from Scotland in 1678). I get an attorney, who wants to know under what authority the feds have determined that I am an illegal immigrant, without my having voluntarily given up my rights, or been convicted in a court of law. And, as they put me on the boat to Scotland, the feds who did this to me tell my lawyer what? I really want to know. It is important to me to discover just exactly where I lost my constitutional right to a trial on a criminal charge, without my voluntarily signing those rights way. Please, educate me. Was it my accent? Perhaps my skin color? Maybe because I live in Georgia and my name isn't "Bubba"? Maybe I didn't vote for Trump?


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Ok, Liquid. I am walking down the street, and I have no wallet. A cop approaches me, and asks for identification. I tell him I have none. he arrests me (without probable cause, which is unconstitutional). They take me in and give me a "waiver". I voluntarily give up *none* of my rights. They deport me, to....where....(My ancestors arrived from Scotland in 1678). I get an attorney, who wants to know under what authority the feds have determined that I am an illegal immigrant, without my having voluntarily given up my rights, or been convicted in a court of law. And, as they put me on the boat to Scotland, the feds who did this to me tell my lawyer what? I really want to know. It is important to me to discover just exactly where I lost my constitutional right to a trial on a criminal charge, without my voluntarily signing those rights way. Please, educate me. Was it my accent? Perhaps my skin color? Maybe because I live in Georgia and my name isn't "Bubba"? Maybe I didn't vote for Trump?


This is the dumbest analogy I ever heard, and shows you don't even know your own states laws regarding ID. A cop can't arrest you for not having ID (unless you are in certain states that their statutes allow for it), he may ask you questions to attempt to determine your ID. If you answer his questions and tell him you are here in violation of the law, then he may arrest you and/or he may contact USCIS to determine if they want him to detain you into custody for them. If USCIS takes custody of you , then you are ran through more checks to determine your ID. 

Now, if it was determined based on your answers, or non-answers,  then it is the officers discretion or USCIS's to detain or not. Once you are turned over to USCIS they will go about processing you, if your fingerprints come back saying you are either a citizen, a naturalized citizen, or on an immigrant on a visa, then they will probably release you and you have no legal recourse. If they are unable to ID you and you refuse to give them your ID or you lie to them, they may keep you in an immigrant detention center until someone ID's you, you may even be deported based on the information you give. You could contact an attorney, but your going to be in a holding cell until he positively ID's you as being able to legally be in the US.
In The Rush To Deport, Expelling U.S. Citizens

None of your rights have been violated to this point, and you may be held liable for failing to provide ID, which is determined by your own states laws, _Stop and Identify Statutes. _


> In four states (Arkansas, Florida, *Georgia*, and Rhode Island), *failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest.* In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.


I would suggest you learn your states laws.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, Liquid. I am walking down the street, and I have no wallet. A cop approaches me, and asks for identification. I tell him I have none. he arrests me (without probable cause, which is unconstitutional). They take me in and give me a "waiver". I voluntarily give up *none* of my rights. They deport me, to....where....(My ancestors arrived from Scotland in 1678). I get an attorney, who wants to know under what authority the feds have determined that I am an illegal immigrant, without my having voluntarily given up my rights, or been convicted in a court of law. And, as they put me on the boat to Scotland, the feds who did this to me tell my lawyer what? I really want to know. It is important to me to discover just exactly where I lost my constitutional right to a trial on a criminal charge, without my voluntarily signing those rights way. Please, educate me. Was it my accent? Perhaps my skin color? Maybe because I live in Georgia and my name isn't "Bubba"? Maybe I didn't vote for Trump?
> ...



You went off course in the third sentence. After that, you diverted from my entire question. Google Sheriff Joe. As you know, he is a sheriff of a county close to where I live. He, too, thinks that a cop can stop and question you without probable cause, and then arrest you simply because he thinks that you are an illegal alien. As a result of this information, Maricopa County has been fined millions of dollars by the feds for unconstitutional unreasonable search and seizure. Joe, himself has been charged, found guilty, and fined for the racial profiling:

Joe Arpaio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After getting past that, you never did tell me how I can be deported without being found guilty of a crime, without my voluntarily agreeing to give up my rights. And, while I am at it, we will go back to English common law, which held that the government has to prove that I am guilty, I don't have to prove that I am innocent. I also can opt to remain silent. Therefore, your contention is, and I suspect that Trump's is, too, that I can be picked up off the street, remain silent, and be deported against my will, without being convicted of a crime, and without me giving up any of my rights. 

Nope, Liquid. Tweet Trump right away. It ain't gonna happen, and someone should let him know.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


I never went off course responding to you, nor did I divert anything, I suggest you learn the laws before exclaiming things you don't seem to know much about, I would add you need to comprehend as well, which you seem to be failing at.

Cops can stop and question you when they come into contact with you. Do you not understand what _Stop and Identify Statutes_ are? Since you are in AZ here are your state statutes regarding it.
Format Document
and
Format Document

I could care less about Arpaio and what he claims, if he did so in violation of the laws, which if I'm not mistaken his office had 287(g) authority, and regarding illegals he was never shown to be in violation of the law, however Obama did pull his 287(g) status in 2011 based on racial profiling charges.

I don't need to tell you how you get deported if you are never convicted of a crime, since you don' t need to be convicted of a crime to be deported. Only your status needs to be determined, you may request a hearing, but if found to be in violation of the law EWI or VO, you don't have to be charged with a crime, you're only charged with a crime based on the discretion of the administration, i.e. the AG.

I have laid out how US Citizens are deported, you can look it up via google or the link I provided which shows a US Citizen having been deported (there are numerous instances of this happening). In immigration law you have to prove you are here legally and that proof may/may not be accepted.

You still show utter ignorance of the laws. I suggest you research your next reply to me much more thoroughly.

Here's a link in your neck of the woods explaining how not having ID can get you arrested and quickly deported without being charged with a crime in AZ. Police State: How the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency Turned All Local Authorities Into La Migra


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



And here we go. Sheriff Joe was not acting unconstitutionally. He was convicted of racial profiling by the corrupt OBAMA CONSPIRACY! And, that is the heart of this issue. I say that Trump is lying when he claims that he can deport 12 million illegals in 2 years while not violating the constitution. I say that he can't do it, and what happened to Sheriff Joe is proof. You say that Sheriff Joe was railroaded for political reasons by Obama. I say that it is established law that you can NOT arbitrarily asking anyone for proof of citizenship under the constitution. Well, I willnot about to argue with someone who has decided that Obama is conspiring to railroad people who are in favor of deporting illegal aliens. I offer, instead, the following proof that no can NOT require papers from anyone without probable cause.


As to your contention that people can be deported without being convicted, or without agreeing to waive their rights, that is too absurd to even discuss. If that were the case, anyone in America is at risk of being thrown out of the country. While that is impossible now, if Trump were to be elected, I suppose that he could figure out how to take away our constitutional rights...which is what this thread is all about.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 12, 2016)

Londoner said:


> Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?



Of course he will ...and have Mexico pay for it.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 12, 2016)

Want more examples of your constitutional rights?


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Talk about diversion. SMH Arpaio was guilty on charges of racial profiling, not illegal immigration violations. Which fails to actually address what I stated and showed, since I already stated he had the racial profiling issue.  

You can claim Trump can't deport 12M in 2 years all you want, however it is entirely possible, much to your dismay. Pulling someone over based on race is illegal, pulling someone over for failure to wear a seat belt or for having a light out, or for a cracked window, or a mirror missing are all legal. You failing to provide your ID as mandated by your states law could get you detained, and if you are here illegally, deported without ever being convicted of a crime. A Law Enforcement Officer only needs to come into contact with you, do you understand what that means? They can't just walk up to you and ask for ID, they must have a cause to come into contact with you as I have stated.

Your link is hilarious, He had to put corrections in captions in the bottom right corner. If this moron knew anything about permanent check points verse thinking he was a Constitutional Scholar he would refer to this case 
*United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)* 
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte 428 U.S. 543 (1976)


> 1. The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. Pp. 428 U. S. 556-564.
> 
> (a) To require that such stops always be based on reasonable suspicion would be impractical because the flow of traffic tends to be too heavy to allow the particularized study of a given car necessary to identify it as a possible carrier of illegal aliens. Such a requirement also would largely eliminate any deterrent to the conduct of well disguised smuggling operations, even though smugglers are known to use these highways regularly. Pp. 428 U. S. 556-557.
> 
> ...


The cases are older than he is.. LMFAO

Now to my contentions; they have all been shown via links and cites to be dead on accurate, you choosing to disregard them is your choice and a chance you are obviously willing to take based on your inept comprehension of actual laws and what is or is not Constitutional in your own mind. If being thrown out as a citizen via mistake or your own idiotic ideals as you have so graciously given us,  was so impossible why has it happened under Obama? The rest is nothing more than your own inane ramblings.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 12, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Want more examples of your constitutional rights?


This is hilarious, what a fucking moron. Like the officer stated, he (the officer) only needs to be satisfied the person questioned may be a US citizen. That is done via answering the questions or thinking they are exclaiming constitutional protections when the officer only needs to be satisfied the person may be a citizen.

From even the ACLU that states CBP has constitutional authority within 100 miles of the border and admits _The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status._
The Constitution in the 100-Mile Border Zone


> In this 100-mile zone, Border Patrol agents have certain extra-Constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol can operate immigration checkpoints.
> Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).


This means that permanent checkpoints aren't the same as roving check points to which from the same link states 





> For example, Border Patrol, according to news reports, operates approximately 170 interior checkpoints throughout the country (the actual number in operation at any given time is not publicly known). The ACLU believes that these checkpoints amount to dragnet, suspicionless stops that cannot be reconciled with Fourth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist _only_ of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status.


----------



## jillian (Mar 12, 2016)

Londoner said:


> Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?



there won't be a president trump "rolleyes:


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 12, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Want more examples of your constitutional rights?
> ...



I really should show this to the lieutenant, to whom the commander of the Sheriff's Auxiliary reports, where I volunteer, Liquid, but I can't. Even though I am not paid to serve, I could still be fired for not being discreet, and that would bruise my ego. I won't even ask how these people got away with refusing border patrol demands, since you claim that the BP has the constitutional authority to detain them.

So, you just go on thinking that us law enforcement folks can weed out and deport illegal aliens at the rate of 6 million per year, without trials, without probable cause, and without due process. Of course, you will never really know, since Trump's chances of becoming president of the USA is pretty much the same as his chance of dying because he had been struck by lightening.


----------



## Bond27 (Mar 12, 2016)

jillian said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?
> ...



If you Jews rig the elections there will be a third reich.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 12, 2016)

Bond27 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Londoner said:
> ...



Yep! Time for grog rations!


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 13, 2016)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



I can agree with you, but I still don't think Trump is the answer.


----------



## jillian (Mar 13, 2016)

Bond27 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Londoner said:
> ...



you're kind of a psychotic loon.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 13, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Show it to whomever you wish, and have them explain it to you so that you can understand it. People didn't get away with refusing border patrol demands as nothing was demanded from them, CBP has the Constitutional authority to ask, as *United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) *states. Now you try to put words in my comments that aren't there, at no point did I state CBP could detain them, you are confusing Law Enforcement Officers with CBP, you are either being intellectually dishonest or are just outright ignorant.

You volunteer and as a volunteer you have NO law enforcement authority, you are not in law enforcement, nor have you ever been. LMFAO

I suggest you learn immigration law, it is much different then civil/criminal law. Then I suggest you learn what an Expedited Removal is (no court hearing, no charges), in fact you can go back a page or 2 where I linked to it for you. I love how you project I am a Trump supporter based on this simple topic. watafuknmoron

The difference between you and I, is that I will vote for which ever Republican receives the nominee, simply because I don't want either Democrat in that office. My guess is you will sit out if Trump gets the nominee simply due to your own ignorance.


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 13, 2016)

it's titles like this that is causing DIVISION and violence. and it's not coming from the Republicans. it's sickening


----------



## jasonnfree (Mar 15, 2016)

Londoner said:


> Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?



Here's a link for what it takes for an American to live in Mexico.  That pig vincente fox knows that his country deals harshly with those who break Mexican immigration laws, but still gives the  f word to Trump, and you pro undocumented people applaud fox for it.   I do agree though, that what Trump proposes is unworkable, but no other country allows foreigners in their country as easily as America does, which is why we get millions of immigrants with no money, few skills, and many needs. 

Newly issued Mexican immigration regulations are bad news for Americans


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 19, 2016)

jasonnfree said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?
> ...



Point is, it is completely irrational to think you can "round up" millions of people and deport them without HUGE costs to the American people.  We should just let those who are already here remain, and step it up with our border control so that we aren't allowing MORE and MORE to enter the country illegally.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that we should deny any kind of immigration to this country unless it is on a work visa.  We have our limits and they are already being pushed.  In a country of over 300,000,000 DOCUMENTED people, it's quite obvious that we do not have enough jobs or resources for anyone else.


----------



## LilOlLady (Mar 25, 2016)

Door to door is not necessary but a joke. All that has to be done is mandatory E-Verify, fines, jail time and confiscate businesses that hire cheap illegal  aliens, If they cannot work and get welfare they will self deport taking their anchor babies with them so they can get welfare in Mexico.


----------



## rhodescholar (Mar 25, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> Would not surprise me!  Adolf Trump is bringing back the old days of George Wallace.  Actually, Trump is more dangerous than Wallace.  He's clearly the most dangerous presidential candidate in my lifetime.  Sad...



While I get this is an internet forum, and juvenile, overly-emotional responses are de riguer, the moment I see people attaching Trump to hitler, calling him "racist," a "nazi", etc., I realize they are utterly devoid of facts or a real argument, and are trying to use childish emotional responses in place of having something intelligent to offer.

The fact is that Trump is not racist nor has he said anything that can be considered as such; like most Americans who actually work for a living he is fed up with the democrats importing large numbers of impoverished foreigners who will be dependent upon them in exchange for votes.  This is EXACTLY what the founding fathers warned the country not to do, use the purse to buy votes from people who become addicted to receiving handouts.

A party that needs to import large numbers of foreigners because native US citizens won't vote for them has utterly failed in its mission, and by calling all those who rightfully are opposed to the country's enabling and allowance of illegals to remain in the country "racist" is childish and proof the person cannot defend the indefensible.  Those defending the presence and support of illegals usually either have an agenda (la raza) or are a short-sighted democratic party supporter, who does not understand how the immense amount of money the country is wasting on illegals is destroying not only the nation's financial backbone but its underlying civic nature as well.

I say that because like many other business owners, I am reaching an end point where I will no longer pay taxes nor will I deduct them from my employees because of the vast amount of funds the federal government is spending against mine and most citizens' wishes on illegals.  You might say "go ahead, you'll go to jail."  Is the federal gov't going to arrest 100 million people? 

There ARE going to be riots soon, and Trump came at just the right time - the pent-up anger over the illegal aliens; anchor baby nonsense, free schooling/housing/healthcare, and welfare is at a boiling point, and the democratic party and its subversive allies embracing its platform of permanent inflows of illegals such as the NY Times will be brought to task in the most ghastly ways for their crimes.  Just watch if Trump is not elected, or the democrats try to stop the country from mass deporting the illegals and changing the laws to fix this problem.  Watts '65 and Chicago '68 will look like picnics compared to what people like me are willing to do to stop my money and children's futures from being stolen by the national democratic party and hordes of their future voters from central/south america.


----------



## rhodescholar (Mar 25, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> And THAT costs money too!!!  Good grief.  So . . . your solution is just "deport them!"  Well, if that was feasible, why hasn't anyone else done it?  Because it is NOT feasible or affordable.  That's why.



Do the folliwng and most will leave on their own:

1) no admittance of illegals to any school or college
2) no admittance of illegals to any housing/child care credits for Section 8 housing
3) no admittance of illegals to any hospital
4) $10K fine and 5 year prison sentence to any employer and all executives of any firms with illegals employed
5) no welfare of any kind for illegals
6) anchor baby mis-reading of 14th amendment repaired - BOTH parents must be citizens for baby to be a US cit
7) must be a citizen/permanent resident to open a bank account, and only they can rent or buy an apartment/house/property
8) complete border fence across entire southern border using Israel's gaza border fence as a model.  Use of advanced technologies such as ground based radar to catch those digging tunnels
9) apply all of these retro-actively, so that anchor babies going back to 1950 lose their citizenship
10) tax all remittances through the wire banking system at 85%, which will be used to fund the fence's construction and re-imburse taxpayers like me who have spent huge amounts of money on illegals in our cities
11) all countries of origin of these people who refuse to accept their former residents will lose all and any aid provided.  They will also lose any favorable tax treaty status and/or trade agreements in place.  All visas for such countries will be reduced to a trickle and only on a VERY limited basis.  Diplomatic relations will be downgraded to attache level.
12) conduct persistent and relentless workplace raids until all employers have accepted that the oversight and strength of fines makes having illegal employees no longer worth it

Once you eliminate all of the benefits for the illegals and their children, their ability to work/earn a living/find a place to live, most will self-deport, reducing the need to chase them down in the shadows and forcibly deport them.  Familes where the parents came to the US and had illegal children will have the citizenship of their children revoked, and the parents will be unable to return to the US for any reason for no less than 30 years.

While seemingly draconian, these steps are actually in place in most other countries; it is just that in the US the democratic party propaganda spewed through its media allies has so brainwashed americans that many actually believe that there is nothing wrong with having lots of illegals around, that "they enrich the culture" or some other BS.  

Once they are shown the hard facts, like New Yorkers who learn that NYS/NYC spends over $5 BILLION PER YEAR educating illegal children, for example,  the amount of money that could finish the Second Avenue subway from Wall St to the Bronx, they begin to realize how badly they have been lied to for so long.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 26, 2016)

rhodescholar said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > And THAT costs money too!!!  Good grief.  So . . . your solution is just "deport them!"  Well, if that was feasible, why hasn't anyone else done it?  Because it is NOT feasible or affordable.  That's why.
> ...



Some of these ideas I can get behind, but others not so much.  Would you let a toddler die because it was an "illegal" by not treating it at the hospital?  Not me.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 26, 2016)

Londoner said:


> Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?




Ignorant children on here always makes me laugh out loud


So the some on the left is accusing trump of what he might do?

When they already fuckin did it??????


----------



## rhodescholar (Mar 26, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Some of these ideas I can get behind, but others not so much.  Would you let a toddler die because it was an "illegal" by not treating it at the hospital?  Not me.



Emergencies requiring immediate care can be dealt with, and the originating country (Mexico, Honduras, etc) billed for the care.  Any cases not requiring immediate ambulatory care can be medi-vacced by helo to mexico or flown to their originating nation.

Keep in mind there are illegals coming across the border bringing their children in solely for the medical care of the US, and dozens of hospitals have had to close because of their non-payment.  That has been a disaster for the citizens living in the neighborhoods where that has happened as they've lost local medical facilities, causing many to die because of the much longer distance they've had to travel for care - yet another cost to the country of providing support for illegals so the democraps can have additional votes.


----------



## rhodescholar (Mar 26, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Ignorant children on here always makes me laugh out loud  So the some on the left is accusing trump of what he might do?  When they already fuckin did it??????



Its like the BS about banning muslims, the far left filth should go look up what Carter - the pet darling of the far left - did WRT iran.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 26, 2016)

rhodescholar said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Ignorant children on here always makes me laugh out loud  So the some on the left is accusing trump of what he might do?  When they already fuckin did it??????
> ...




Yup or the Japanese americans

That's three that they did....


----------



## Manonthestreet (Mar 26, 2016)

LilOlLady said:


> Door to door is not necessary but a joke. All that has to be done is mandatory E-Verify, fines, jail time and confiscate businesses that hire cheap illegal  aliens, If they cannot work and get welfare they will self deport taking their anchor babies with them so they can get welfare in Mexico.


Plus you know where they are by the checks you send them Just knock on the door and say the party is over seeyabye


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 26, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...




*The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) *
provides for several types of due process for aliens, depending on their circumstances of arrival and stay. The law does not require that all removals be ordered by an immigration judge. 


The Supreme Court has said that, where expulsion proceedings are concerned, *due process for aliens in the United States is whatever Congress chooses it to be *— subject to certain constraints imposed by the Constitution, and as ultimately interpreted by the courts themselves, that is.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 26, 2016)

rhodescholar said:


> .....  Watts '65 and Chicago '68 will look like picnics compared to what people like me are willing to do ......




Who are you kidding? You aren't willing to do anything beyond whining on the internet.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 26, 2016)

rhodescholar said:


> ...  Any cases not requiring immediate ambulatory care can be medi-vacced by helo to mexico or flown to their originating nation.
> ....




And how much would that cost, genius?


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 26, 2016)

rhodescholar said:


> ...
> 12) conduct persistent and relentless workplace raids ....





Oh yeah, cripple OUR economy. Great idea, genius.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 26, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



Any border agent can ask for your passport and proof of citizenship. Any government ICE agent under reports of suspicious activity can ask you for your identification, they are well within their jurisdiction and authority to do so.  Try telling a trooper who believes  he saw you swerve over a double yellow, that he can't (or has no authority to) see your identification.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 26, 2016)

rhodescholar said:


> ...
> 
> 1) no admittance of illegals to any school or college....




The Supreme Court has already ruled against that idea.


----------



## HenryBHough (Mar 26, 2016)

That premise is so silly.  They won't have to knock on doors - just tie a string to a welfare check and drag it slowly down the street.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 26, 2016)

rhodescholar said:


> ... no admittance of illegals to any hospital....




Never going to happen.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 26, 2016)

rhodescholar said:


> ...
> 6) anchor baby mis-reading of 14th amendment repaired - BOTH parents must be citizens for baby to be a US cit....




Good luck with the Constitutional amendment, genius.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 26, 2016)

rhodescholar said:


> 7) must be a citizen/permanent resident to open a bank account, and only they can rent or buy an apartment/house/property
> ....




Again, this would harm OUR economy, genius.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 26, 2016)

rhodescholar said:


> ...
> 9) apply all of these retro-actively, so that anchor babies going back to 1950 lose their citizenship...




The law doesn't work that way, genius.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 26, 2016)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



In order for an illegal immigrant to be deported, He first must be found guilty of being an illegal immigrant in a court of law.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 26, 2016)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



In America, no law enforcement officer can detained, or search you without probable cause that you have committed a crime.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 26, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


No he does not. It has been shown to you repeatedly that Administrative and Expedited Removals do not require he be found guilty in a court of law, only that his status is that of non-citizen and non-immigrant. The only time a court of law comes into play is if the illegal is charged with an infamous crime.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 26, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Border Patrol has the authority under the 4th Amendment to question you at a port of entry and border check point. Local law enforcement can question you and detain you once they come into contact with you, look at your state statutes, as I already linked to them for you. 

Everything you are claiming has already been shown to be ignorantly inaccurate.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 26, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



Nope


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 26, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



...and nope...

This describes the constitutional process as that are required, without the consent of the detainee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html

"“As ugly as some people think it is, it’s a bargain for the defendants,” Judge Velasco said in an interview in his chambers. “What we do is constitutional, it satisfies due process. It may not look good, but it does everything the law requires.”


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 26, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


So you're going to sit here and deny everything that has been shown to you showing your claims to be asinine and ignorant? LMFAO


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 26, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


And those, in your link, at the border are being charged with an infamous crime, EWI. SMFH You can't truly be this inept, can you? Due Process is only required if they are being charged with an infamous crime. If they are not charged, they can be removed via Expedited Removal or Administrative Removal. Do you really not comprehend your own link?

Here's my link that explains the basics to you. When Can Noncitizens Be Removed Without Seeing an Immigration Judge? | Nolo.com


> Although legal discussions regarding the removal (or deportation) of noncitizens from the U.S. tend to revolve around immigration court proceedings, *the majority of noncitizen removals actually takes place outside this system*. Such removals are issued directly by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) *through summary (or expedited) proceedings and are usually not reviewable by an immigration judge*. They may, however, under extremely rare circumstances, be challenged in federal court.


What? No Due Process required? WTF?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 26, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



According to the INA they don't even have to face a immigration judge.  Perhaps you can provide some actual legislation you are siting from.  I'm just not interested in merely your "opinion" if you can't support it


----------



## rhodescholar (Mar 27, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> And how much would that cost, genius?



To save you the trouble shitbag, I have you on ignore so don't bother even trying to engage me in conversation - you are trolling dogshit.


----------



## rhodescholar (Mar 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> So you're going to sit here and deny everything that has been shown to you showing your claims to be asinine and ignorant? LMFAO



That's what makes the internet so great; bottom-feeding, low IQ idiots like that can be readily exposed and if desired, put on ignore.  The weak posters like that and the other turd I have on ignore are usually ignored by others as well, as Darwinism works as well on public forums as it does in the real world.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 27, 2016)

rhodescholar said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > And how much would that cost, genius?
> ...







In other words, genius never thought beyond "fuck yeah!"


----------



## boedicca (Mar 27, 2016)

Considering that the Gubmint's "Jack Booted Thugs" are generally SEIU and other union members, I doubt it.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 27, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


. So your idea of keeping America law abiding, is to teach people how to escape obeying the laws of the nation ? Interesting.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 27, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> > 7) must be a citizen/permanent resident to open a bank account, and only they can rent or buy an apartment/house/property
> ...


. So corporations or greedy businessmen can use the nations fear mongering over the economy, to do bad things to this nations society for their personal gain ?  Interesting.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 27, 2016)

beagle9 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



I would be delighted to enroll you in my constitutional law course, Beagle, but I see that the class is already full.


----------



## Moonglow (Mar 27, 2016)

Londoner said:


> Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?


Just wait until the cell phone heroes become the secret police...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 27, 2016)

beagle9 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...


Yet another conservative who is clueless about presumption of innocence and the right to due process of the law.

What a surprise…


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 27, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Not full enough, apparently.


----------



## MaryL (Mar 27, 2016)

Londoner said:


> Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?


Wow. Immigrate legally, wouldn't that be the right thing to do? And  it would avoid so many problems. Why is this  acceptable the antithesis  to fair  legal  immigration?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 27, 2016)

Ok. Lesson 2 is a demonstration that you have a right to refuse to allow unreasonable search and seizure during a DWI check point stop, unless the law enforcement officer has probable cause:


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 27, 2016)

MaryL said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?
> ...


No, the right thing to do is stop being an ignorant bigot and learn the facts. 

Fact: one is not ‘illegal’ until found guilty in a court of law of entering the country absent authorization.

Fact: many refugees are undocumented, and have the right to apply for refugee status.

Fact: undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process of the law.

Fact: undocumented immigrants are presumed innocent until their immigration status – or lack thereof – is adjudicated.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 27, 2016)

An undocumented alien only becomes and illegal alien, if found guilty in a court of law. PERIOD. There is no law against being an undocumented alien. 

Trump is playing to the emotions on the Right, with crap like this, and and the Right is lapping it up like a dog licking ice cream off the driveway.


----------



## rhodescholar (Mar 27, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No, the right thing to do is stop being an ignorant bigot and learn the facts.



Your credibility is already starting in a poor position by calling your opponent a name, and claiming that someone who opposes illegal immigration to be a "bigot".



> Fact: one is not ‘illegal’ until found guilty in a court of law of entering the country absent authorization.



WRONG. If I shoot you in the head, I may not be "guilty" of the charge of murder, but I can be arrested against my will.  Second, some illegals are illegal simply for overstaying a visa; they may have originally entered legally.



> Fact: many refugees are undocumented, and have the right to apply for refugee status.



Wrong again.  Go look up what constitutes a refugee according to the 1951 Refugee Convention.  Almost all peoples from the Western hemisphere who enter the US do not qualify.



> Fact: undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process of the law.



Illegals are entitled to whatever the US congress decides they are entitled to.



> Fact: undocumented immigrants are presumed innocent until their immigration status – or lack thereof – is adjudicated.



FALSE, otherwise they could not be turned around at the border.  

Can people who do not have a legal background in this field stop posting comments as if they do?  They are making themselves look like morons.


----------



## rhodescholar (Mar 27, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> An undocumented alien only becomes and illegal alien, if found guilty in a court of law. PERIOD. There is no law against being an undocumented alien.



Do you think if you keep repeating the same falsehood, it will get on top of the same unicorn you are sitting on, and magically become true?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 27, 2016)

rhodescholar said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > An undocumented alien only becomes and illegal alien, if found guilty in a court of law. PERIOD. There is no law against being an undocumented alien.
> ...


Do you think you could be any more ignorant of the law:

‘The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments[.]’ 
Plyler v. Doe


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 27, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


LMFAO, hell, you don't even no the basics of immigration law let alone the basics of Constitutional Law.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 27, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Illegals are only entitled due process if they are charged with an infamous crime. Illegals can be deported without due process. http://web.stanford.edu/group/irc/Deportation_Without_Due_Process_2011.pdf


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 27, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


Got to love people that don't know jack shit about immigration law. RMFE


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


Also wrong.

The_ Plyler_ Court held that the state of Texas could not refuse to allow the children of undocumented parents access to public schools based solely on their undocumented status.

Undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process with regard to both civil and criminal law.


----------



## MaryL (Mar 27, 2016)

Good lord. I don't which is worse: illegal immigrants or the idiots that support them and claim racism and bigotry.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Can’t love people who remain willfully ignorant of the law as a consequence of their fear, hate, and bigotry toward Hispanic immigrants.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 27, 2016)

MaryL said:


> Good lord. I don't which is worse: illegal immigrants or the idiots that support them and claim racism and bigotry.


What’s worse is the bigots and racists who ignore the law because of their unwarranted fear and hatred of Hispanic immigrants.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 27, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


You do understand that Plyler is a State case and is directed merely at the individual State and not the Federal Govt, right? SMFH Illegals are only afforded "due process" if they are charged with an infamous crime. They can be deported without "due process" via Expedited Removal/Administrative Removal/Stipulated Removal.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 27, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Only those that fail to follow links and provided citations showing that illegals can be deported without "due process" are the willfully ignorant and fail basic immigration law and Constitutional Law and what appears to be basic English Comprehension.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 27, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Good lord. I don't which is worse: illegal immigrants or the idiots that support them and claim racism and bigotry.
> ...


So because you can't refute reality you call people names that are actually following the law? Pathetic. Side note: not all illegal immigrants are Hispanics, moron.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 27, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


What is the first sentence telling you that you quoted? I'll highlight it for you - _ the *state* of Texas could not refuse to allow the children of undocumented parents._ You do understand that it is directed at the state, right? It is not directed at the federal govt.

Wow, you finally got it half right, _illegals are entitled to "due process" in regard to civil/criminal law_, *provided they are charged with an infamous crime*. They can be deported without "due process" via immigration law as my many links have stated.

Do you really not comprehend basic English?


----------



## MaryL (Mar 27, 2016)

I refute no one,  just immigrate legally. You got a problem with that?


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 27, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No, the right thing to do is stop being an ignorant bigot and learn the facts.


That would be nice if you actually knew the facts let alone the basics of immigration law.



> Fact: one is not ‘illegal’ until found guilty in a court of law of entering the country absent authorization.


Once a person is identified as being without legal status, they are identified as an "illegal alien". No court required.



> Fact: many refugees are undocumented, and have the right to apply for refugee status.


No, You are wanting to use asylum seekers to which there is no right to asylum in the US, not refugee. SMFH
If "refugees" cross the border and are identified as being from a country that has refugee status, such as Columbia, they can be paroled into the US as PRUCOL aliens.



> Fact: undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process of the law.


Only if they are charged with an infamous crime.



> Fact: undocumented immigrants are presumed innocent until their immigration status – or lack thereof – is adjudicated.


Their status doesn't need to be adjudicated, they merely need to be identified as illegals by USCIS.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 27, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> An undocumented alien only becomes and illegal alien, if found guilty in a court of law. PERIOD. There is no law against being an undocumented alien.


NOPE. There are numerous laws about being an illegal/undocumented alien. You should start with United States Code, Chapter 8, then move on to the Immigration and Naturalization Acts, or the INA for short. 



> Trump is playing to the emotions on the Right, with crap like this, and and the Right is lapping it up like a dog licking ice cream off the driveway.


Trump actually has legal advisors as to what the laws allow for or not. The idiocy you have exclaimed is at best that of someone that hasn't the first clue about the basics of immigration law.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 27, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Ok. Lesson 2 is a demonstration that you have a right to refuse to allow unreasonable search and seizure during a DWI check point stop, unless the law enforcement officer has probable cause:


Lesson 2? LMFAO Your first lesson showed you to be inept, now you're trying again? SMFH
You really should quit going by Headlines.



> *WASHINGTON, June 14— * Following are excerpts from the Supreme Court's 6-to-3 decision today upholding sobriety checkpoints as constitutional. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion. Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote a separate concurring opinion. Justices William J. Brennan and John Paul Stevens both filed dissenting opinions.
> 
> This case poses the question whether a state's use of highway sobriety checkpoints violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We hold that it does not and therefore reverse the contrary holding of the Court of Appeals of Michigan.
> .....
> ...


Excerpts From Supreme Court's Decision Upholding Sobriety Checkpoints


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 27, 2016)

rhodescholar said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > An undocumented alien only becomes and illegal alien, if found guilty in a court of law. PERIOD. There is no law against being an undocumented alien.
> ...



You are invited, as a member of the public, to attend the trials of illegal aliens here in Tucson 5 days per week, with 70 trials per business day, and see for yourself.

I have,


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 27, 2016)

Good luck deporting an illegal alien, Liquid, who has never been declared "illegal' in a court of law. 

Frankly, I have my doubts about you. please show your birth certificate. if not, then I guess I will just have to deport you to...oh, I don't know. Whatever country I am in the mood to deport you to today.


----------



## rhodescholar (Mar 28, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Can’t love people who remain willfully ignorant of the law as a consequence of their fear, hate, and bigotry toward Hispanic immigrants.



Good strawman, show where anyone said anything along the lines that ONLY hispanic illegals should be deported.  Another weak poster...


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 28, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> An undocumented alien only becomes and illegal alien, if found guilty in a court of law. PERIOD. There is no law against being an undocumented alien.
> 
> Trump is playing to the emotions on the Right, with crap like this, and and the Right is lapping it up like a dog licking ice cream off the driveway.


. So your OK with the murders of Americans by these so called undocumented illegal aliens, until the law catches them and says "hey your an illegal" on top of them murdering Americans without us knowing they were here.


----------



## beagle9 (Mar 28, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Good lord. I don't which is worse: illegal immigrants or the idiots that support them and claim racism and bigotry.
> ...


. Holding your accusations of racism and bigotry over the good citizens heads is about to come to an end soon, so deal with it... Your strawmen won't work anymore after that.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 28, 2016)

beagle9 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > An undocumented alien only becomes and illegal alien, if found guilty in a court of law. PERIOD. There is no law against being an undocumented alien.
> ...



Not even worthy of a serious response.


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 28, 2016)

MaryL said:


> Good lord. I don't which is worse: illegal immigrants or the idiots that support them and claim racism and bigotry.



those are the traitors to us and our country. and that makes up a lot of the Democrat party


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 28, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Those illegals are being charged with an infamous crime - Entry Without Inspection which is either a Federal Misdemeanor for the first offense or a Federal Felony for the second offense. Do you really think all the illegals in the US are going through Operation Streamline? SMFH


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 28, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Good luck deporting an illegal alien, Liquid, who has never been declared "illegal' in a court of law.
> 
> Frankly, I have my doubts about you. please show your birth certificate. if not, then I guess I will just have to deport you to...oh, I don't know. Whatever country I am in the mood to deport you to today.


Good luck with it? Hell, it happens each and every day, no luck involved. Illegals do not have to be charged with an infamous crime to be deported, USCIS only has to identify them as being here in violation of the laws. Do you still not understand what an Expedited Removal is? Here let me give you the link once again, maybe this time you should read it you think? http://web.stanford.edu/group/irc/Deportation_Without_Due_Process_2011.pdf


> Over the past decade, the United States government has dramatically ex-panded its use of a program called “stipulated removal” that has allowed immigration officials to deport over 160,000 non-U.S. citizens without ever giving them their day in court.



My Birth Certificate, just like yours, doesn't state or show that I, or you, are US Citizens. At best, a birth certificate only proves Nationality. I do have my passport though, that specifically declares me to be a US National and a US Citizen. 

You really think illegals are just simply deported without knowing to which country to send them? LMFAO As I have continuously stated, you haven't the first clue how immigration law works. Each EWI individual is interviewed by USCIS and they are asked from which country they come from, they are then allowed to talk to their Consulate. Then they are either deported or held in detention if they choose to fight their deportation. Those that entered via a visa already have a passport from their country of origin, which is where they are returned to.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 28, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> An undocumented alien only becomes and illegal alien, if found guilty in a court of law. PERIOD. There is no law against being an undocumented alien.


An EWI is an illegal immigrant once he/she has been identified as being here without an I-94 or a stamp in their passport. Arrival/Departure Forms: I-94 and I-94W | U.S. Customs and Border Protection In fact the overwhelming majority admit to EWI once in contact with law enforcement. What you are referring to as _no law against being an undocumented alien_ refers specifically to visa overstays, since they entered the US legally. Visa overstays are in NO violation of immigration law, it is only once they have an order of deportation against them that they then become in violation of immigration law and are deemed illegal aliens.



> Trump is playing to the emotions on the Right, with crap like this, and and the Right is lapping it up like a dog licking ice cream off the driveway.


So Trumps legal advisors don't know what they are talking about? You, with NO law experience at all, claim to know more than actual people trained in Law, specifically immigration law? LMFAO


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 28, 2016)

I don't have an issue with enforcing the laws against illegals.  I don't think it is viable to go "rounding them up" and deporting them all.  That is silly.  Our money should be spent in preventing future illegals from benefiting from our social service systems.  That is for American citizens only.  I don't mind my tax dollars going to support legal American citizens who need help, but our resources are limited and we cannot afford to pay for people from other countries too.  That is their respective countries' responsibility and not our responsibility.


----------



## Milam (Mar 29, 2016)

we need a powerful government here...maybe Trump is not the best choice but c'mon he's better than "miss Clinton"
talking about illegals well...they're too many we need to deport some of them and stop Muslim immigration right now (they're dangerous we clearly can see it...just a preventative measure)


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 29, 2016)

Milam said:


> we need a powerful government here...maybe Trump is not the best choice but c'mon he's better than "miss Clinton"
> talking about illegals well...they're too many we need to deport some of them and stop Muslim immigration right now (they're dangerous we clearly can see it...just a preventative measure)



Good idea. We will set up a checkpoint at the airport, and they must answer the question, "Are you a Muslim?". If he answers "Yes", then back he goes!


----------



## Milam (Mar 29, 2016)

if they come from a Muslim country, if they were born there they're Muslim
simple


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 29, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Milam said:
> 
> 
> > we need a powerful government here...maybe Trump is not the best choice but c'mon he's better than "miss Clinton"
> ...


Are you claiming we don't have the right to deny entry to whom we choose? Do you think people have a right to come here?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 29, 2016)

Milam said:


> if they come from a Muslim country, if they were born there they're Muslim
> simple



Well, 10% of our doctors are Muslims. so, off they go! 

Yep! Simple answers from simple minds.


----------



## Milam (Mar 29, 2016)

Liquid Reigns if they're potentially dangerous they have no right to come here
and Muslim people are dangerous ipso facto....


----------



## Milam (Mar 29, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Milam said:
> 
> 
> > if they come from a Muslim country, if they were born there they're Muslim
> ...


we don't need their doctors
we can use our doctors or maybe Europeans or Chinese doctors
we don't need Koran doctors...


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 29, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Milam said:
> ...



I just hope that you will give my friend Danny, and his family a pass. He has been in Saudi Arabia for 7 years working for Exxon. his two kids were born there.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 29, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Milam said:
> 
> 
> > if they come from a Muslim country, if they were born there they're Muslim
> ...


Why would it be off they go? Aren't they here already? Didn't you just claim if they were to come through an airport? Those already here would have a US Passport or would have US travel documents already approved by USCIS.

You still haven't the first clue as to how immigration works or its laws.


----------



## Milam (Mar 29, 2016)

VandalShandle they're American nationals there's no problem with them
I don't think they're just Muslim just because they were born in Saudi Arabia!


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 29, 2016)

Milam said:


> Liquid Reigns if they're potentially dangerous they have no right to come here
> and Muslim people are dangerous ipso facto....


Nobody has the right to come here, and we hold every right to deny entry to whom we choose.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 29, 2016)

Milam said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Milam said:
> ...



Well, I have three docs, and by golly, I am going to question each one of them, and require them to eat a sausage, egg, McMuffin, or else they get put on the next plane!


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 29, 2016)

Milam said:


> VandalShandle they're American nationals there's no problem with them
> I don't think they're just Muslim just because they were born in Saudi Arabia!


 How about my grandniece's husband He was born in Pakistan, but got his education here, and has gone into private practice as a D. O.? He wants to bring some family over. May he?


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 29, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Milam said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Who said anything about removing Muslims that were already here? That's right, it's your hyperbole in action. SMFH


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 29, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Milam said:
> 
> 
> > VandalShandle they're American nationals there's no problem with them
> ...


I'm betting he is an LPR or has already naturalized. SMFH Nothing like you continuously moving the goal posts attempting to make points that aren't relevant to your initial claim.


----------



## Milam (Mar 29, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Milam said:
> ...


our government in my opinion should do these things:
1) no foreigners from Muslim countries should be admitted here
2) deport all foreigners Muslims from our country
3) mark all Muslim Americans (maybe they could have some special ID)
4) amend our laws no Muslim can get American citizenship


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 29, 2016)

Milam said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



Milam, are you even old enough to vote?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 29, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Milam said:
> ...



Still, it seems a shame that my grandniece's husband's family can not come here to visit, or immigrate. They just became parents themselves. Will we have to ship half of the child back to Pakistan?


----------



## Milam (Mar 29, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Milam said:
> 
> 
> > VandalShandle they're American nationals there's no problem with them
> ...


no offense but I would send your grandniece and her husband to Pakistan
they should live there with all those Muslims
they would be happy I'm sure
(I don't know why a Western girl should marry a man from Pakistan...it seems a little weird...)


----------



## Milam (Mar 29, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Milam said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...


Unlikely for me...yes I'm old enough to vote


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 29, 2016)

Milam said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



How about making them wear a yellow star on their outer clothing?


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 29, 2016)

Milam said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


1) I would suspend Muslims from entering if they do not have a US Passport or US Travel documents.
2) How could you deport Muslims that are already here that have naturalized? or are LPR's? 
3) If Muslims are indeed US Citizens, they deserve no such mark. LPR's and non-immigrants should be surveyed.
4) LPR Muslims have the right to apply to naturalize if they choose, it can not be denied to them. USCIS determines if they qualify for naturalization.


----------



## Milam (Mar 29, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...





Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


they can come here to visit but not to immigrate
we have too many immigrants (legals or illegals)
we don't need more of them (expecially Muslims)
why don't we want Muslims? well tell French and Belgian they know why!


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 29, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


:yawn: Your grandniece and her husband can take the child there to visit.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 29, 2016)

They could put a microchip in their brains, to keep track of them.....


----------



## Milam (Mar 29, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Milam said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...


maybe a special ID for Muslims and nothing more
I don't think they should have so many problems...


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 29, 2016)

Milam said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Seriously, Milam, it is obvious that English is not your primary language. I demand your papers!


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 29, 2016)

Milam said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Milam said:
> ...


Most would have a special ID of sorts, it's called an I-94 form, unless they are LPR's to which they would then have a Green Card and an SS number.


----------



## Milam (Mar 29, 2016)

my papers? why?
I was born here O_O


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 29, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Liquid, I knew that you were an ignorant blowhard, but you have now demonstrated your self to be a bigoted, xenophobic, ignorant blowhard. I'm done with you. You have been deported from my Computer screen. By, by!


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 29, 2016)

Milam said:


> my papers? why?
> I was born here O_O



I think that you are a Latino, probably illegally here from Cuba or Mexico. Liquid tells me that I can have you deported without a trial, so start packing your bags.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 29, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


All those words from someone that bloviates ignorance, why am I not surprised? LMFAO


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 29, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Milam said:
> 
> 
> > my papers? why?
> ...


You can't have anybody deported, nor do you have the authority to demand anybody's papers. You are neither law enforcement nor DoS/DHS/USCIS.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Mar 29, 2016)

Milam said:


> my papers? why?
> I was born here O_O


He doesn't hold any authority to demand anything, his ignorance has been shown to be what it is.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 29, 2016)

The irony here is illegals are demanding rights from laws that they themselves don't follow or respect. Those who do support providing them with advanced education as well as other taxpayer funded benefits, honestly don't have the slightest concept of what immigrants who desire to pursue the federal "legal" process must endure to achieve it.  Rather we should be enforcing a position that encourages respect for our current Federal immigration laws, by taking action against those cities that willfully choose to shelter such illegal activity from ICE enforcement agents.  These sanctuary cities need to have their Federal funding cut, instead of watching this administration waste taxpayer dollars taking a position against governors that seek to further support enforcement of their state's national borders.  It's time we acquire a leader that holds a respect for our laws and understands the need to uphold them, rather than one seeking those ways in which a president can undermine them. Let's begin to show a respect for ALL immigrants, rather than focusing our efforts on those who are not citizens nor seeks the process given to them that other foreigners use to obtain citizenship legally.


----------



## rhodescholar (Mar 30, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid, I knew that you were an ignorant blowhard, but you have now demonstrated your self to be a bigoted, xenophobic, ignorant blowhard. I'm done with you. You have been deported from my Computer screen. By, by!



And you've shown yourself to be an immature fucking child who insults everyone you disagree with.  Instead of placing him on ignore, how about you just fuck out of this thread and forum, and never come back?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 30, 2016)

rhodescholar said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid, I knew that you were an ignorant blowhard, but you have now demonstrated your self to be a bigoted, xenophobic, ignorant blowhard. I'm done with you. You have been deported from my Computer screen. By, by!
> ...



Having a bad day, rhode? I suggest Midol. It relieves you of that terrible bloated feeling.


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 30, 2016)

Even if Trump did the stupid thing in your title. he would be following in the footsteps of Billy Clinton and Janet Reno hunting this little refugee down to send to back to Fidel Castro because he demanded it. but your dramatics is a yawner


----------



## rhodescholar (Mar 30, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Having a bad day,....



I suggest you STFU and leave this thread before you are banned from it, idiot asshole.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 30, 2016)

rhodescholar said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Having a bad day,....
> ...



Now, Rhode, that is downright un neighborly....


----------



## Lady_Lbrty (Apr 2, 2016)

I certainly hope so.

Sent from my Z987 using Tapatalk


----------

