# Question for those that support sanctuary cities/states.



## JoeMoma

How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!


----------



## miketx

How?


----------



## JoeMoma

miketx said:


> How?


So you support sanctuary cities/states?


----------



## miketx

JoeMoma said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you support sanctuary cities/states?
Click to expand...

Pretending to not understand. Classic libtard move!


----------



## JoeMoma

miketx said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you support sanctuary cities/states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretending to not understand. Classic libtard move!
Click to expand...

So you made a libtard move by pretending to not understand the title of the thread!  Okay!


----------



## Humorme

JoeMoma said:


> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!



You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.

In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:

"_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)

Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.

Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.

I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.

You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.

The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)

So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.

You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.  

I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Humorme said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
Click to expand...



*but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*




What kind of retarded  thinking is that?


They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals* 


They over stay their visas they are *criminals*


----------



## KissMy

The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.


----------



## JoeMoma

Humorme said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
Click to expand...

Okay.


----------



## JoeMoma

KissMy said:


> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.


Are you for open boarders, in other words — everyone is welcome?


----------



## Wyatt earp

KissMy said:


> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.




We already have over 500 miles of a wall before Trump took office so what's your point?


----------



## antifa

85% of our crops will rot in the field without illegally migrant workers. They deserve sanctuary in all 50 states.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeMoma said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for open boarders, in other words — everyone is welcome?
Click to expand...

he's for open borders.
Not open citizenship.
No welfare, no social system to lure them in, no free lunch. 
Everyone free to go anywhere they can afford to get to but with no Federal hand outs to lure them there.


----------



## JoeMoma

Slyhunter said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for open boarders, in other words — everyone is welcome?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he's for open borders.
> Not open citizenship.
> No welfare, no social system to lure them in, no free lunch.
> Everyone free to go anywhere they can afford to get to but with no Federal hand outs to lure them there.
Click to expand...

That is an opinion I can respect.  Are you of a similar opinion?


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeMoma said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for open boarders, in other words — everyone is welcome?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he's for open borders.
> Not open citizenship.
> No welfare, no social system to lure them in, no free lunch.
> Everyone free to go anywhere they can afford to get to but with no Federal hand outs to lure them there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is an opinion I can respect.  Are you of a similar opinion?
Click to expand...

only after I've won the lottery.


----------



## JoeMoma

Slyhunter said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for open boarders, in other words — everyone is welcome?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he's for open borders.
> Not open citizenship.
> No welfare, no social system to lure them in, no free lunch.
> Everyone free to go anywhere they can afford to get to but with no Federal hand outs to lure them there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is an opinion I can respect.  Are you of a similar opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only after I've won the lottery.
Click to expand...

PowerBall is estimated at 550 million.  
Powerball - Home


----------



## WillMunny

KissMy said:


> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.



There is NO Constitutional right for a foreigner to enter America; it's a privilege that can be revoked at any time for any reason.  ALL countries enforce their borders, but you liberals scream and yell when America does it because you're self-hating Americans who want to dissolve our sovereignty and give the 3rd world a free ride.  You don't even care how open borders affects fellow Americans.


----------



## Humorme

bear513 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
Click to expand...


No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:

"_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)

The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.

When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?

The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.  

Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.

I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.


----------



## Humorme

KissMy said:


> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.



It's like swatting flies with a sledge hammer.


----------



## JoeMoma

Humorme said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
Click to expand...


While it is true under our law, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty by due process, that doesn't determine the reality of one's guilt or innocence.  For example, I could possibly wear a mask and rob a bank and never be caught.  Am I guilty of robbing the bank since I've never been convicted?  Of course I am (if I were to have actually robbed a bank); the act of robbing the bank is what makes me guilty of robbing the bank.  Likewise, if a person enters the country illegally to stay, that act makes the person an illegal immigrant. 


Some posters to this thread are for open borders.  I can respect that.  For those that are for open boarders, they should be for changing the law to reflect that.  We as a country need to decide whether we are going to have laws to restrict immigration or not!


----------



## danielpalos

JoeMoma said:


> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!


At the federal borders because this is a federal problem since 1808, not a State problem, since then.

A market friendly visa program that allows participants to "try their luck" in our markets; would be a boon to any State that generates revenue from tourism.

A federal id should be a requirement.

Revenue from the visa system could help fund unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, so native labor can, "retool."


----------



## JoeMoma

danielpalos said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> At the federal borders because this is a federal problem since 1808, not a State problem, since then.
> 
> A market friendly visa program that allows participants to "try their luck" in our markets; would be a boon to any State that generates revenue from tourism.
> 
> A federal id should be a requirement.
> 
> Revenue from the visa system could help fund unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, so native labor can, "retool."
Click to expand...

Are you saying that if a person can get though the "federal" border illegally or overstay a visa illegally that the states should treat such an individual the same as everyone else because it's not a state problem?  Are you saying there should be no cooperation between stage/local governments and the federal government when it comes to immigration?


----------



## Humorme

WillMunny said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO Constitutional right for a foreigner to enter America; it's a privilege that can be revoked at any time for any reason.  ALL countries enforce their borders, but you liberals scream and yell when America does it because you're self-hating Americans who want to dissolve our sovereignty and give the 3rd world a free ride.  You don't even care how open borders affects fellow Americans.
Click to expand...


What you're saying is absolute stupidity.  It was people like you that bitched and wailed when Obama would kneel before third world potentates.  Yet you and Barack Obama want the same thing for America: You advocate the same laws.

Get this through your head:  This is the United States of America.  This nation was conceived in* Liberty* and it became the *GREATEST NATION IN THE ANNALS OF HISTORY*.  What made us great was an idea, a presupposition, and the advancement of that idea into a document of which the author stated was the "_declaratory charter of the rights of man_."  Let me share an excerpt from that document:

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."  Declaration of Independence

You should look up the word *LIBERTY*.  It has a meaning.  Liberty is not granted by government, it is a Right that is above the reach of mortal men.

Early in our country's history, people came from every corner of the earth in search of opportunities.  At the same time, only whites could become citizens.  Only whites could hold public office.  We were controlling immigration without walls, drones, or the *POLICE STATE*. In those days the government did not tell employers who they could and could not hire.  The government did not require us to provide foreigners with a free education.  There were no welfare agencies or government freebies for the foreigner to expect would cater to them.

And yet, despite all of that, America did not go down the tubes.  We sent more soldiers into battle than any other country on the planet.  And that was always for some other country's benefit, not ours.  We put more missionaries on foreign soil than all other countries combined!   We became the economic powerhouse of the world, all the while having a _Statue of Liberty_ welcoming people from everywhere in the world.

By contrast, the people like yourself have endorsed the so - called _"Patriot Act_," the National ID / REAL ID Act, National Defense Authorization Act, the end to _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence_, the end of private property Rights, and* worse*.  There is never enough government for you people.

Issues that can be solved at the local level and by individuals having the Freedom and Liberty to make their own decisions* don't need your Big Government Solutions*.

With minimal effort I could end the immigration issue for you and it would never be a problem in the future.  But, some people are stuck on stupid and never want to hear the whole story so long as the political propaganda prostitutes continue reciting the same fairy tales over and over and over again.  You're so focused on the symptoms and the Hegelian solutions (if you can call regression a solution) that you can't think outside the box.


----------



## danielpalos

JoeMoma said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> At the federal borders because this is a federal problem since 1808, not a State problem, since then.
> 
> A market friendly visa program that allows participants to "try their luck" in our markets; would be a boon to any State that generates revenue from tourism.
> 
> A federal id should be a requirement.
> 
> Revenue from the visa system could help fund unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, so native labor can, "retool."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that if a person can get though the "federal" border illegally or overstay a visa illegally that the states should treat such an individual the same as everyone else because it's not a state problem?  Are you saying there should be no cooperation between stage/local governments and the federal government when it comes to immigration?
Click to expand...

States have no Constitutional basis to care if someone is from out of state or from out of State, since 1808.

It is a federal problem that should be resolved with the federal powers already delegated by the People, in our federal Constitution.  

I am Saying, any problems States have should be prioritized by the States.

First degrees should go first.


----------



## KissMy

danielpalos said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> At the federal borders because this is a federal problem since 1808, not a State problem, since then.
> 
> A market friendly visa program that allows participants to "try their luck" in our markets; would be a boon to any State that generates revenue from tourism.
> 
> A federal id should be a requirement.
> 
> Revenue from the visa system could help fund unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, so native labor can, "retool."
Click to expand...

*Article 1, Section 9.*
The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, *not exceeding ten dollars for each person.*

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.


----------



## Humorme

JoeMoma said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> At the federal borders because this is a federal problem since 1808, not a State problem, since then.
> 
> A market friendly visa program that allows participants to "try their luck" in our markets; would be a boon to any State that generates revenue from tourism.
> 
> A federal id should be a requirement.
> 
> Revenue from the visa system could help fund unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, so native labor can, "retool."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that if a person can get though the "federal" border illegally or overstay a visa illegally that the states should treat such an individual the same as everyone else because it's not a state problem?  Are you saying there should be no cooperation between stage/local governments and the federal government when it comes to immigration?
Click to expand...


I said there should be no such thing as so - called "_illegal immigration_."

There used to be a show on tv called _Death Valley Days_.  It was historical recreations of the actual events that happened in mostly the 1800s in the U.S..  Its depictions show that we had open borders and tremendously effective immigration control.

The *POLICE STATE* mentality and immigration control are as different as gun control and actual crime control.  The principles, however, are much alike.

The liberals look at guns and have a conniption fit.  Oh, the guns are the problem, they say.  And, rather than to respect peoples LIBERTY, they are content with knee jerk solutions that do not address the underlying issue.  Ditto for those who want to change America into a socialist shit-hole on the nonsensical presupposition that deporting foreigners is some kind of solution to their problem.

Here is the kicker:  Rather than *answer my questions*, the people who are sold on the *POLICE STATE* ignore the tough questions about what happens should they win.  And the left would love to see you win.


----------



## Humorme

JoeMoma said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it is true under our law, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty by due process, that doesn't determine the reality of one's guilt or innocence.  For example, I could possibly wear a mask and rob a bank and never be caught.  Am I guilty of robbing the bank since I've never been convicted?  Of course I am (if I were to have actually robbed a bank); the act of robbing the bank is what makes me guilty of robbing the bank.  Likewise, if a person enters the country illegally to stay, that act makes the person an illegal immigrant.
> 
> 
> Some posters to this thread are for open borders.  I can respect that.  For those that are for open boarders, they should be for changing the law to reflect that.  We as a country need to decide whether we are going to have laws to restrict immigration or not!
Click to expand...


First, it is borders not boarders.  It damages your credibility when you cannot spell the issue correctly.

Whether or not a person is guilty or not of robbing a bank is not as relevant as to whether they are presumed innocent or not.  It's really a separate issue, but the build the wall guys want to build their case at an expense to the Rights and Freedoms of *all* Americans.  That includes their own, BTW.

Should we have open borders?

The answer is a resounding yes.  Why?

It takes a complete and total *POLICE STATE* in order to enforce the National Socialist utopia envisioned by the build the wall types.  What you have to lose is greater than what you have to gain.  

All the build the wall guys want to talk about are what they see as their strongest talking points, but not where the road ultimately takes them.  In fifteen years, they have *never* even attempted to answer my questions (a previous post contains one of those questions.)

The symptoms they fear can be dealt with more effectively without the assault on Liberty.


----------



## JoeMoma

Humorme said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it is true under our law, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty by due process, that doesn't determine the reality of one's guilt or innocence.  For example, I could possibly wear a mask and rob a bank and never be caught.  Am I guilty of robbing the bank since I've never been convicted?  Of course I am (if I were to have actually robbed a bank); the act of robbing the bank is what makes me guilty of robbing the bank.  Likewise, if a person enters the country illegally to stay, that act makes the person an illegal immigrant.
> 
> 
> Some posters to this thread are for open borders.  I can respect that.  For those that are for open boarders, they should be for changing the law to reflect that.  We as a country need to decide whether we are going to have laws to restrict immigration or not!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, it is borders not boarders.  It damages your credibility when you cannot spell the issue correctly.
> 
> Whether or not a person is guilty or not of robbing a bank is not as relevant as to whether they are presumed innocent or not.  It's really a separate issue, but the build the wall guys want to build their case at an expense to the Rights and Freedoms of *all* Americans.  That includes their own, BTW.
> 
> Should we have open borders?
> 
> The answer is a resounding yes.  Why?
> 
> It takes a complete and total *POLICE STATE* in order to enforce the National Socialist utopia envisioned by the build the wall types.  What you have to lose is greater than what you have to gain.
> 
> All the build the wall guys want to talk about are what they see as their strongest talking points, but not where the road ultimately takes them.  In fifteen years, they have *never* even attempted to answer my questions (a previous post contains one of those questions.)
> 
> The symptoms they fear can be dealt with more effectively without the assault on Liberty.
Click to expand...

I suck at spelling.... if that hurts my credibility, so be it.  Not that I don't try to get spelling right... but I'm not going to adhere to an elaborate proof reading process for a message board.


----------



## danielpalos

KissMy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> At the federal borders because this is a federal problem since 1808, not a State problem, since then.
> 
> A market friendly visa program that allows participants to "try their luck" in our markets; would be a boon to any State that generates revenue from tourism.
> 
> A federal id should be a requirement.
> 
> Revenue from the visa system could help fund unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, so native labor can, "retool."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9.*
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, *not exceeding ten dollars for each person.*
> 
> The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
> 
> No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
> 
> No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
> 
> No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
Click to expand...

There seems to be enough, latitude of construction, to permit States to charge up to ten dollars to ensure lawful Commerce in their markets.


----------



## Humorme

JoeMoma said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it is true under our law, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty by due process, that doesn't determine the reality of one's guilt or innocence.  For example, I could possibly wear a mask and rob a bank and never be caught.  Am I guilty of robbing the bank since I've never been convicted?  Of course I am (if I were to have actually robbed a bank); the act of robbing the bank is what makes me guilty of robbing the bank.  Likewise, if a person enters the country illegally to stay, that act makes the person an illegal immigrant.
> 
> 
> Some posters to this thread are for open borders.  I can respect that.  For those that are for open boarders, they should be for changing the law to reflect that.  We as a country need to decide whether we are going to have laws to restrict immigration or not!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, it is borders not boarders.  It damages your credibility when you cannot spell the issue correctly.
> 
> Whether or not a person is guilty or not of robbing a bank is not as relevant as to whether they are presumed innocent or not.  It's really a separate issue, but the build the wall guys want to build their case at an expense to the Rights and Freedoms of *all* Americans.  That includes their own, BTW.
> 
> Should we have open borders?
> 
> The answer is a resounding yes.  Why?
> 
> It takes a complete and total *POLICE STATE* in order to enforce the National Socialist utopia envisioned by the build the wall types.  What you have to lose is greater than what you have to gain.
> 
> All the build the wall guys want to talk about are what they see as their strongest talking points, but not where the road ultimately takes them.  In fifteen years, they have *never* even attempted to answer my questions (a previous post contains one of those questions.)
> 
> The symptoms they fear can be dealt with more effectively without the assault on Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suck at spelling.... if that hurts my credibility, so be it.  Not that I don't try to get spelling right... but I'm not going to adhere to an elaborate proof reading process for a message board.
Click to expand...


I catch hell all the time, but the left will crucify you over not knowing how to spell the subject you care about.

Anyway, since you didn't answer my last question, I trust you will be thinking about it???   Let me give you another scenario:

Suppose that you "win."  The wall goes up and we do all these deportations.  Let's say it works out exactly the way you want it to.

Have you stopped to consider that once that happens Uncle Scam then would have to turn those ninja clad federal mercenaries loose on *YOU*?  There will always be new laws and new bogeys to go after.

Those on the right don't seem to get it.  The LEO community isn't into laying off cops.  Last night they had a special on about the 25th anniversary about the attack on the Branch Davidians.  It reinforced in my mind why I do not trust a government so big it *cannot *be resisted.  And, despite all that was learned from Waco, the build the wall guys think that this omnipotent form of government can serve them well.

They cannot understand that the drones used to police so - called "_illegal aliens_" will be the same, identical LEO effort that is used against alleged domestic terrorists, enemy combatants, racists, tax protesters, etc.  *WHEN* the political pendulum swings back the opposite direction (and it always does) the left is in charge and the same treatment you want to dish out is dished out to you.  Not guilty of being a domestic terrorist?  You might own a firearm and disagree with the libs.  You're a terrorist.  You advocated for a position of presuming people guilty and no due process.  Think you're not an enemy combatant?  Check out some of the posts on this board by extreme black liberals.  Give them that power that cannot be resisted and those ninja clad terrorists you used to lock down the border.

I came up with a twelve point program that would *not* increase the size, power and /or scope of government.  It won't increase taxes.  But, the build the walls guys have no intention of ever considering it.  It does not punish their political enemies.  It illustrates the fact that Thomas Paine was right all along.


----------



## JoeMoma

Humorme said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it is true under our law, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty by due process, that doesn't determine the reality of one's guilt or innocence.  For example, I could possibly wear a mask and rob a bank and never be caught.  Am I guilty of robbing the bank since I've never been convicted?  Of course I am (if I were to have actually robbed a bank); the act of robbing the bank is what makes me guilty of robbing the bank.  Likewise, if a person enters the country illegally to stay, that act makes the person an illegal immigrant.
> 
> 
> Some posters to this thread are for open borders.  I can respect that.  For those that are for open boarders, they should be for changing the law to reflect that.  We as a country need to decide whether we are going to have laws to restrict immigration or not!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, it is borders not boarders.  It damages your credibility when you cannot spell the issue correctly.
> 
> Whether or not a person is guilty or not of robbing a bank is not as relevant as to whether they are presumed innocent or not.  It's really a separate issue, but the build the wall guys want to build their case at an expense to the Rights and Freedoms of *all* Americans.  That includes their own, BTW.
> 
> Should we have open borders?
> 
> The answer is a resounding yes.  Why?
> 
> It takes a complete and total *POLICE STATE* in order to enforce the National Socialist utopia envisioned by the build the wall types.  What you have to lose is greater than what you have to gain.
> 
> All the build the wall guys want to talk about are what they see as their strongest talking points, but not where the road ultimately takes them.  In fifteen years, they have *never* even attempted to answer my questions (a previous post contains one of those questions.)
> 
> The symptoms they fear can be dealt with more effectively without the assault on Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suck at spelling.... if that hurts my credibility, so be it.  Not that I don't try to get spelling right... but I'm not going to adhere to an elaborate proof reading process for a message board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I catch hell all the time, but the left will crucify you over not knowing how to spell the subject you care about.
> 
> Anyway, since you didn't answer my last question, I trust you will be thinking about it???   Let me give you another scenario:
> 
> Suppose that you "win."  The wall goes up and we do all these deportations.  Let's say it works out exactly the way you want it to.
> 
> Have you stopped to consider that once that happens Uncle Scam then would have to turn those ninja clad federal mercenaries loose on *YOU*?  There will always be new laws and new bogeys to go after.
> 
> Those on the right don't seem to get it.  The LEO community isn't into laying off cops.  Last night they had a special on about the 25th anniversary about the attack on the Branch Davidians.  It reinforced in my mind why I do not trust a government so big it *cannot *be resisted.  And, despite all that was learned from Waco, the build the wall guys think that this omnipotent form of government can serve them well.
> 
> They cannot understand that the drones used to police so - called "_illegal aliens_" will be the same, identical LEO effort that is used against alleged domestic terrorists, enemy combatants, racists, tax protesters, etc.  *WHEN* the political pendulum swings back the opposite direction (and it always does) the left is in charge and the same treatment you want to dish out is dished out to you.  Not guilty of being a domestic terrorist?  You might own a firearm and disagree with the libs.  You're a terrorist.  You advocated for a position of presuming people guilty and no due process.  Think you're not an enemy combatant?  Check out some of the posts on this board by extreme black liberals.  Give them that power that cannot be resisted and those ninja clad terrorists you used to lock down the border.
> 
> I came up with a twelve point program that would *not* increase the size, power and /or scope of government.  It won't increase taxes.  But, the build the walls guys have no intention of ever considering it.  It does not punish their political enemies.  It illustrates the fact that Thomas Paine was right all along.
Click to expand...

I will be thinking over what you wrote as you have given me food for thought.  I am actually not necessary a build the wall guy.  I'm trying to stay open minded.   I had to start back to work today after the holidays, so I don't have quite as much time on my hands.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

JoeMoma said:


> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!


Loaded question fallacy.


----------



## JoeMoma

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> Loaded question fallacy.
Click to expand...

You are a drive by fallacy mislabeling machine.


----------



## Humorme

JoeMoma said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is true under our law, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty by due process, that doesn't determine the reality of one's guilt or innocence.  For example, I could possibly wear a mask and rob a bank and never be caught.  Am I guilty of robbing the bank since I've never been convicted?  Of course I am (if I were to have actually robbed a bank); the act of robbing the bank is what makes me guilty of robbing the bank.  Likewise, if a person enters the country illegally to stay, that act makes the person an illegal immigrant.
> 
> 
> Some posters to this thread are for open borders.  I can respect that.  For those that are for open boarders, they should be for changing the law to reflect that.  We as a country need to decide whether we are going to have laws to restrict immigration or not!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, it is borders not boarders.  It damages your credibility when you cannot spell the issue correctly.
> 
> Whether or not a person is guilty or not of robbing a bank is not as relevant as to whether they are presumed innocent or not.  It's really a separate issue, but the build the wall guys want to build their case at an expense to the Rights and Freedoms of *all* Americans.  That includes their own, BTW.
> 
> Should we have open borders?
> 
> The answer is a resounding yes.  Why?
> 
> It takes a complete and total *POLICE STATE* in order to enforce the National Socialist utopia envisioned by the build the wall types.  What you have to lose is greater than what you have to gain.
> 
> All the build the wall guys want to talk about are what they see as their strongest talking points, but not where the road ultimately takes them.  In fifteen years, they have *never* even attempted to answer my questions (a previous post contains one of those questions.)
> 
> The symptoms they fear can be dealt with more effectively without the assault on Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suck at spelling.... if that hurts my credibility, so be it.  Not that I don't try to get spelling right... but I'm not going to adhere to an elaborate proof reading process for a message board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I catch hell all the time, but the left will crucify you over not knowing how to spell the subject you care about.
> 
> Anyway, since you didn't answer my last question, I trust you will be thinking about it???   Let me give you another scenario:
> 
> Suppose that you "win."  The wall goes up and we do all these deportations.  Let's say it works out exactly the way you want it to.
> 
> Have you stopped to consider that once that happens Uncle Scam then would have to turn those ninja clad federal mercenaries loose on *YOU*?  There will always be new laws and new bogeys to go after.
> 
> Those on the right don't seem to get it.  The LEO community isn't into laying off cops.  Last night they had a special on about the 25th anniversary about the attack on the Branch Davidians.  It reinforced in my mind why I do not trust a government so big it *cannot *be resisted.  And, despite all that was learned from Waco, the build the wall guys think that this omnipotent form of government can serve them well.
> 
> They cannot understand that the drones used to police so - called "_illegal aliens_" will be the same, identical LEO effort that is used against alleged domestic terrorists, enemy combatants, racists, tax protesters, etc.  *WHEN* the political pendulum swings back the opposite direction (and it always does) the left is in charge and the same treatment you want to dish out is dished out to you.  Not guilty of being a domestic terrorist?  You might own a firearm and disagree with the libs.  You're a terrorist.  You advocated for a position of presuming people guilty and no due process.  Think you're not an enemy combatant?  Check out some of the posts on this board by extreme black liberals.  Give them that power that cannot be resisted and those ninja clad terrorists you used to lock down the border.
> 
> I came up with a twelve point program that would *not* increase the size, power and /or scope of government.  It won't increase taxes.  But, the build the walls guys have no intention of ever considering it.  It does not punish their political enemies.  It illustrates the fact that Thomas Paine was right all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will be thinking over what you wrote as you have given me food for thought.  I am actually not necessary a build the wall guy.  I'm trying to stay open minded.   I had to start back to work today after the holidays, so I don't have quite as much time on my hands.
Click to expand...


I heard that.  I get defensive over this subject and spend too much time on the Internet.  But, we can have a good conversation about this.  You have to figure out who the trolls are and ignore their B.S.

One indicator:  They will have to quote every single sentence posted and pretend to disagree with concocted lies that have been debunked time and time again.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)


You are certainly entitled to your interpretation, but our laws and our history do not agree with your interpretation.



Humorme said:


> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.


No they didn't. Most of those coming here were from Europe and England. The blacks that were brought here were as indentured servants and slaves. There were no Asians and no middle easterners here until the 1800's.



Humorme said:


> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.


We don't think that, that is why there are numerous visas that are not immigrant visas. 



Humorme said:


> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.


What Liberties have you lost from immigration laws?



Humorme said:


> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.


Immigrants are here at the behest of our country allowing them to be here, we have the right as a nation to remove them for any reason we see fit. 



Humorme said:


> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)


So much bloviation and assumption. Children may or may not be born US Citizens. If they are removed along with their parents, never received a SS number (which doesn't prove citizenship at all), may receive a birth certificate stating the location they were born and to whom the parents are (a birth certificate does not prove citizenship), then how is it they will be expected to show up at the border demanding to be let in? Home isn't necessarily where you were born. SMFH 



Humorme said:


> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.


How will they be coming here in droves if most can't legally enter due to not having a recognized US Citizenship? You have gotten your answer numerous times, you just choose to fail to accept reality based on your exaggerated ideals.



Humorme said:


> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.


How about you get passed the exaggerations and failed interpretations first?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

antifa said:


> 85% of our crops will rot in the field without illegally migrant workers. They deserve sanctuary in all 50 states.


LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Slyhunter said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for open boarders, in other words — everyone is welcome?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he's for open borders.
> Not open citizenship.
> No welfare, no social system to lure them in, no free lunch.
> Everyone free to go anywhere they can afford to get to but with no Federal hand outs to lure them there.
Click to expand...

Federal handouts are very, very limited, it is the state handouts that you should be focused on.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)


Maybe you should first understand that document and the very documents that led up to it before you start calling people retarded or claim they are ignoring the USC. Your quote of Paine doesn't help one understand or even interpret the USC



Humorme said:


> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.


Immigration law is much different then criminal/civil law. A foreigner doesn't have to be convicted of a crime to be removed from our country, nor do they need to be convicted to be called illegal immigrants for violating our entry laws. Their rights are very limited and they do not hold all the same rights as a citizen.



Humorme said:


> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?


LEO is much different then BP and ICE. BP and ICE deal strictly with foreigners. When local LEO screws up they are held liable and punished.



Humorme said:


> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.


blah, blah, blah. Don't like it here......leave, or do your damnedest to get the laws changed. Until then......the laws are what they are and most have been challenged to be constitutional or not already. :SHRUG:



Humorme said:


> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.


Back to your interpretations and exaggerations. :YAWN:



Humorme said:


> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.


You don't even know what a National Socialist even is. LMFAO


----------



## Liquid Reigns

danielpalos said:


> At the federal borders because this is a federal problem since 1808, not a State problem, since then.


Using a slave paragraph from the USC that has since been dropped by the very language of the USC doesn't bode well for your argument.



danielpalos said:


> A market friendly visa program that allows participants to "try their luck" in our markets; would be a boon to any State that generates revenue from tourism.


This is already in place, its called the VWP (Visa Waiver Program).



danielpalos said:


> A federal id should be a requirement.


It's called the US Passport. 



danielpalos said:


> Revenue from the visa system could help fund unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, so native labor can, "retool."


The revenue should go to fund the visa program and all involved in it such as DHS, etc.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> What you're saying is absolute stupidity.  It was people like you that bitched and wailed when Obama would kneel before third world potentates.  Yet you and Barack Obama want the same thing for America: You advocate the same laws.


And yet WillMunny is 100% correct. gofigure



Humorme said:


> Get this through your head:  This is the United States of America.  This nation was conceived in* Liberty* and it became the *GREATEST NATION IN THE ANNALS OF HISTORY*.  What made us great was an idea, a presupposition, and the advancement of that idea into a document of which the author stated was the "_declaratory charter of the rights of man_."  Let me share an excerpt from that document:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."  Declaration of Independence


Again your interpretation that is greatly exaggerated and outside of both historical fact and the color of law. The only stupidity around here is yours, so own it. 



Humorme said:


> You should look up the word *LIBERTY*.  It has a meaning.  Liberty is not granted by government, it is a Right that is above the reach of mortal men.


And yet government, granted by man, can limit liberty. Welcome to living in society.



Humorme said:


> Early in our country's history, people came from every corner of the earth in search of opportunities.  At the same time, only whites could become citizens.  Only whites could hold public office.  We were controlling immigration without walls, drones, or the *POLICE STATE*. In those days the government did not tell employers who they could and could not hire.  The government did not require us to provide foreigners with a free education.  There were no welfare agencies or government freebies for the foreigner to expect would cater to them.


No they didn't. Asians and Middle Easterners didn't get here until the middle to late 1800's, 200 years after discovery and first settlements by Europeans. Whites were merely allowed to naturalize at the federal level, there were many blacks who were citizens of said state they lived in, there were even blacks that were in local and state governments. I suggest you take an actual history class to learn the very things you choose not to recognize in your White Nationalist ignorance.



Humorme said:


> And yet, despite all of that, America did not go down the tubes.  We sent more soldiers into battle than any other country on the planet.  And that was always for some other country's benefit, not ours.  We put more missionaries on foreign soil than all other countries combined!   We became the economic powerhouse of the world, all the while having a _Statue of Liberty_ welcoming people from everywhere in the world.


The Statue of Liberty was in the harbor for more than 30 years before it even became a Progressive symbol of welcoming. Why did the Asians landing in San Francisco never pass by the Statue? SMFH



Humorme said:


> By contrast, the people like yourself have endorsed the so - called _"Patriot Act_," the National ID / REAL ID Act, National Defense Authorization Act, the end to _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence_, the end of private property Rights, and* worse*.  There is never enough government for you people.


:YAWN:



Humorme said:


> Issues that can be solved at the local level and by individuals having the Freedom and Liberty to make their own decisions* don't need your Big Government Solutions*.


And yet by our own constitution the feds are in charge of immigrants and foreign relations. :SHRUG:



Humorme said:


> With minimal effort I could end the immigration issue for you and it would never be a problem in the future.  But, some people are stuck on stupid and never want to hear the whole story so long as the political propaganda prostitutes continue reciting the same fairy tales over and over and over again.  You're so focused on the symptoms and the Hegelian solutions (if you can call regression a solution) that you can't think outside the box.


You couldn't figure out how to get out of a wet paper bag let alone end the immigration issue. :YAWN:


----------



## Liquid Reigns

danielpalos said:


> States have no Constitutional basis to care if someone is from out of state or from out of State, since 1808.


And yet they do, hence their own state benefits, etc. Why do you think many states placed in their very constitutions the limiting of people form entering their borders, paupers, vagabonds, etc?



danielpalos said:


> It is a federal problem that should be resolved with the federal powers already delegated by the People, in our federal Constitution.


I agree



danielpalos said:


> I am Saying, any problems States have should be prioritized by the States.
> 
> First degrees should go first.


OK


----------



## Liquid Reigns

KissMy said:


> *Article 1, Section 9.*
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, *not exceeding ten dollars for each person.*


Relying on a section that has been stricken through doesn't bode well for your argument. You do know what the importation of people was right? The slave owner was charged $10 for bringing a slave into the State. SMFH


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> I said there should be no such thing as so - called "_illegal immigration_."


And yet there is. :SHRUG:



Humorme said:


> There used to be a show on tv called _Death Valley Days_.  It was historical recreations of the actual events that happened in mostly the 1800s in the U.S..  Its depictions show that we had open borders and tremendously effective immigration control.


LMFAO It was not historical recreations of actual events. SMFH It in no way showed we had open borders or effective immigration control. LMFAO



Humorme said:


> The *POLICE STATE* mentality and immigration control are as different as gun control and actual crime control.  The principles, however, are much alike.


What principles would those be?



Humorme said:


> The liberals look at guns and have a conniption fit.  Oh, the guns are the problem, they say.  And, rather than to respect peoples LIBERTY, they are content with knee jerk solutions that do not address the underlying issue.  Ditto for those who want to change America into a socialist shit-hole on the nonsensical presupposition that deporting foreigners is some kind of solution to their problem.


Ideological drivel!



Humorme said:


> Here is the kicker:  Rather than *answer my questions*, the people who are sold on the *POLICE STATE* ignore the tough questions about what happens should they win.  And the left would love to see you win.


Your questions have been answered and you were shown to be nothing more than a bloviating extremist, full of exaggeration.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Whether or not a person is guilty or not of robbing a bank is not as relevant as to whether they are presumed innocent or not.  It's really a separate issue, but the build the wall guys want to build their case at an expense to the Rights and Freedoms of *all* Americans.  That includes their own, BTW.


Its not a separate issue, they can be charged and found guilty by a court and given a sentence for it, or they can be still guilty of it until they are caught. Robbing the bank doesn't change your guilt or your crime.



Humorme said:


> Should we have open borders?
> 
> The answer is a resounding yes.  Why?
> 
> It takes a complete and total *POLICE STATE* in order to enforce the National Socialist utopia envisioned by the build the wall types.  What you have to lose is greater than what you have to gain.


And yet it doesn't take but immigration law limited to foreigners to apply only to those foreigners. Immigration law does not effect you or your liberties. SHRUG:



Humorme said:


> All the build the wall guys want to talk about are what they see as their strongest talking points, but not where the road ultimately takes them.  In fifteen years, they have *never* even attempted to answer my questions (a previous post contains one of those questions.)
> 
> The symptoms they fear can be dealt with more effectively without the assault on Liberty.


When your claims are shown to be outlandish, you run to the next thread/forum and repeat the same stupidity.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

danielpalos said:


> There seems to be enough, latitude of construction, to permit States to charge up to ten dollars to ensure lawful Commerce in their markets.


It wasn't the states charging the money for the entry of slaves into our states.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Anyway, since you didn't answer my last question, I trust you will be thinking about it???   Let me give you another scenario:
> 
> Suppose that you "win."  The wall goes up and we do all these deportations.  Let's say it works out exactly the way you want it to.
> 
> Have you stopped to consider that once that happens Uncle Scam then would have to turn those ninja clad federal mercenaries loose on *YOU*?  There will always be new laws and new bogeys to go after.


BP/ICE agents are limited in their jurisdictions and to whom they can arrest and detain. :SHRUG:



Humorme said:


> Those on the right don't seem to get it.  The LEO community isn't into laying off cops.  Last night they had a special on about the 25th anniversary about the attack on the Branch Davidians.  It reinforced in my mind why I do not trust a government so big it *cannot *be resisted.  And, despite all that was learned from Waco, the build the wall guys think that this omnipotent form of government can serve them well.


blah, blah, blah.



Humorme said:


> They cannot understand that the drones used to police so - called "_illegal aliens_" will be the same, identical LEO effort that is used against alleged domestic terrorists, enemy combatants, racists, tax protesters, etc.  *WHEN* the political pendulum swings back the opposite direction (and it always does) the left is in charge and the same treatment you want to dish out is dished out to you.  Not guilty of being a domestic terrorist?  You might own a firearm and disagree with the libs.  You're a terrorist.  You advocated for a position of presuming people guilty and no due process.  Think you're not an enemy combatant?  Check out some of the posts on this board by extreme black liberals.  Give them that power that cannot be resisted and those ninja clad terrorists you used to lock down the border.


:YAWN:



Humorme said:


> I came up with a twelve point program that would *not* increase the size, power and /or scope of government.  It won't increase taxes.  But, the build the walls guys have no intention of ever considering it.  It does not punish their political enemies.  It illustrates the fact that Thomas Paine was right all along.


Taking Paine's quote out of context doesn't bolster your claims, especially when it was written in France and pertained to France. SMFH


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> I heard that.  I get defensive over this subject and spend too much time on the Internet.  But, we can have a good conversation about this.  You have to figure out who the trolls are and ignore their B.S.
> 
> One indicator:  They will have to quote every single sentence posted and pretend to disagree with concocted lies that have been debunked time and time again.


There is nothing you have debunked. You have done nothing more than take quotes out of context and tried your damnedest to make them fit your narrative. What concocted lies have others made? SMFH


----------



## antifa

Liquid Reigns said:


> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85% of our crops will rot in the field without illegally migrant workers. They deserve sanctuary in all 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
Click to expand...

You have to include packing houses, slaughter houses (feed market), and restaurants. Without all these illegal workers, our economy will take a nose dive. The farmers will only be able to salvage about 15% of their crop.

Look what happened in Alabama.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

antifa said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85% of our crops will rot in the field without illegally migrant workers. They deserve sanctuary in all 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to include packing houses, slaughter houses (feed market), and restaurants. Without all these illegal workers, our economy will take a nose dive. The farmers will only be able to salvage about 15% of their crop.
> 
> Look what happened in Alabama.
Click to expand...

LOL, the slaughter houses had people lined up to work there when Bush raided them and got rid of all the illegal workers. Restaurants would lose buss boys, but guess what, young 16 - 20 year old's would take those jobs.

Those days without an illegal 10 or so years ago blew up in their faces. Our economy wouldn't notice them being gone.  Farmers would lose some, it wouldn't be an 85% loss, at best a 20% loss.

Alabama? some farmers claiming losses, yet produce costs did not change nor were there produce shortages in the markets. gofigure


----------



## Humorme

antifa said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85% of our crops will rot in the field without illegally migrant workers. They deserve sanctuary in all 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to include packing houses, slaughter houses (feed market), and restaurants. Without all these illegal workers, our economy will take a nose dive. The farmers will only be able to salvage about 15% of their crop.
> 
> Look what happened in Alabama.
Click to expand...


Just for chits and giggles, what would you say if we tried this:

In Alabama, instead of keeping people in prison rotting away you create tax incentives for farmers to hire ex-cons on probation.  Then, instead of just sticking people with a criminal record back on the street, they work a regular job for a season, getting some money together and preparing themselves to go back into society, getting a regular job and getting their lives together.  

If those farm jobs were being taken by work - release prisoners who can't get any other job, doesn't that reduce the perceived need for so many foreign laborers?


----------



## antifa

Humorme said:


> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85% of our crops will rot in the field without illegally migrant workers. They deserve sanctuary in all 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to include packing houses, slaughter houses (feed market), and restaurants. Without all these illegal workers, our economy will take a nose dive. The farmers will only be able to salvage about 15% of their crop.
> 
> Look what happened in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for chits and giggles, what would you say if we tried this:
> 
> In Alabama, instead of keeping people in prison rotting away you create tax incentives for farmers to hire ex-cons on probation.  Then, instead of just sticking people with a criminal record back on the street, they work a regular job for a season, getting some money together and preparing themselves to go back into society, getting a regular job and getting their lives together.
> 
> If those farm jobs were being taken by work - release prisoners who can't get any other job, doesn't that reduce the perceived need for so many foreign laborers?
Click to expand...

Most states are already doing that. It's called slave labor. The courts keep the prisons filled so crony capitalism can continue pretending the taxpayer will never figurer out who is getting rich off their money.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Humorme said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
Click to expand...



What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?

No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple

What's so complicated about it in your mind?


----------



## Humorme

antifa said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85% of our crops will rot in the field without illegally migrant workers. They deserve sanctuary in all 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to include packing houses, slaughter houses (feed market), and restaurants. Without all these illegal workers, our economy will take a nose dive. The farmers will only be able to salvage about 15% of their crop.
> 
> Look what happened in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for chits and giggles, what would you say if we tried this:
> 
> In Alabama, instead of keeping people in prison rotting away you create tax incentives for farmers to hire ex-cons on probation.  Then, instead of just sticking people with a criminal record back on the street, they work a regular job for a season, getting some money together and preparing themselves to go back into society, getting a regular job and getting their lives together.
> 
> If those farm jobs were being taken by work - release prisoners who can't get any other job, doesn't that reduce the perceived need for so many foreign laborers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most states are already doing that. It's called slave labor. The courts keep the prisons filled so crony capitalism can continue pretending the taxpayer will never figurer out who is getting rich off their money.
Click to expand...


Which states are you saying do that?  Yeah, I agree that the whole prison system deal is a joke in the United States as we have more prisons than any nation on the planet.

OTOH, when those people get out, nobody wants them.  They have a criminal record, no work history, and usually no family support system.


----------



## Unkotare

antifa said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85% of our crops will rot in the field without illegally migrant workers. They deserve sanctuary in all 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to include packing houses, slaughter houses (feed market), and restaurants. Without all these illegal workers, our economy will take a nose dive. The farmers will only be able to salvage about 15% of their crop.
> 
> Look what happened in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for chits and giggles, what would you say if we tried this:
> 
> In Alabama, instead of keeping people in prison rotting away you create tax incentives for farmers to hire ex-cons on probation.  Then, instead of just sticking people with a criminal record back on the street, they work a regular job for a season, getting some money together and preparing themselves to go back into society, getting a regular job and getting their lives together.
> 
> If those farm jobs were being taken by work - release prisoners who can't get any other job, doesn't that reduce the perceived need for so many foreign laborers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most states are already doing that. It's called slave labor. The courts keep the prisons filled so crony capitalism can continue pretending the taxpayer will never figurer [sic] out who is getting rich off their money.
Click to expand...



This kind of 'post' belongs on the conspiracy forum.


----------



## antifa

Humorme said:


> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85% of our crops will rot in the field without illegally migrant workers. They deserve sanctuary in all 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to include packing houses, slaughter houses (feed market), and restaurants. Without all these illegal workers, our economy will take a nose dive. The farmers will only be able to salvage about 15% of their crop.
> 
> Look what happened in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for chits and giggles, what would you say if we tried this:
> 
> In Alabama, instead of keeping people in prison rotting away you create tax incentives for farmers to hire ex-cons on probation.  Then, instead of just sticking people with a criminal record back on the street, they work a regular job for a season, getting some money together and preparing themselves to go back into society, getting a regular job and getting their lives together.
> 
> If those farm jobs were being taken by work - release prisoners who can't get any other job, doesn't that reduce the perceived need for so many foreign laborers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most states are already doing that. It's called slave labor. The courts keep the prisons filled so crony capitalism can continue pretending the taxpayer will never figurer out who is getting rich off their money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which states are you saying do that?  Yeah, I agree that the whole prison system deal is a joke in the United States as we have more prisons than any nation on the planet.
> 
> OTOH, when those people get out, nobody wants them.  They have a criminal record, no work history, and usually no family support system.
Click to expand...

I'd have to check but I'm pretty sure it will be most southern states or any state that doesn't have enough migrant workers.


----------



## Wyatt earp

JoeMoma said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it is true under our law, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty by due process, that doesn't determine the reality of one's guilt or innocence.  For example, I could possibly wear a mask and rob a bank and never be caught.  Am I guilty of robbing the bank since I've never been convicted?  Of course I am (if I were to have actually robbed a bank); the act of robbing the bank is what makes me guilty of robbing the bank.  Likewise, if a person enters the country illegally to stay, that act makes the person an illegal immigrant.
> 
> 
> Some posters to this thread are for open borders.  I can respect that.  For those that are for open boarders, they should be for changing the law to reflect that.  We as a country need to decide whether we are going to have laws to restrict immigration or not!
Click to expand...






While it is true under our law, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty by due process, 




Not with illegals they can and do deport them with out a hearing.



If I break into your house, eat your food, sleep on your couch am I or am I not a criminal? 


It's the same thing


----------



## Wyatt earp

Humorme said:


> WillMunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO Constitutional right for a foreigner to enter America; it's a privilege that can be revoked at any time for any reason.  ALL countries enforce their borders, but you liberals scream and yell when America does it because you're self-hating Americans who want to dissolve our sovereignty and give the 3rd world a free ride.  You don't even care how open borders affects fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're saying is absolute stupidity.  It was people like you that bitched and wailed when Obama would kneel before third world potentates.  Yet you and Barack Obama want the same thing for America: You advocate the same laws.
> 
> Get this through your head:  This is the United States of America.  This nation was conceived in* Liberty* and it became the *GREATEST NATION IN THE ANNALS OF HISTORY*.  What made us great was an idea, a presupposition, and the advancement of that idea into a document of which the author stated was the "_declaratory charter of the rights of man_."  Let me share an excerpt from that document:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."  Declaration of Independence
> 
> You should look up the word *LIBERTY*.  It has a meaning.  Liberty is not granted by government, it is a Right that is above the reach of mortal men.
> 
> Early in our country's history, people came from every corner of the earth in search of opportunities.  At the same time, only whites could become citizens.  Only whites could hold public office.  We were controlling immigration without walls, drones, or the *POLICE STATE*. In those days the government did not tell employers who they could and could not hire.  The government did not require us to provide foreigners with a free education.  There were no welfare agencies or government freebies for the foreigner to expect would cater to them.
> 
> And yet, despite all of that, America did not go down the tubes.  We sent more soldiers into battle than any other country on the planet.  And that was always for some other country's benefit, not ours.  We put more missionaries on foreign soil than all other countries combined!   We became the economic powerhouse of the world, all the while having a _Statue of Liberty_ welcoming people from everywhere in the world.
> 
> By contrast, the people like yourself have endorsed the so - called _"Patriot Act_," the National ID / REAL ID Act, National Defense Authorization Act, the end to _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence_, the end of private property Rights, and* worse*.  There is never enough government for you people.
> 
> Issues that can be solved at the local level and by individuals having the Freedom and Liberty to make their own decisions* don't need your Big Government Solutions*.
> 
> With minimal effort I could end the immigration issue for you and it would never be a problem in the future.  But, some people are stuck on stupid and never want to hear the whole story so long as the political propaganda prostitutes continue reciting the same fairy tales over and over and over again.  You're so focused on the symptoms and the Hegelian solutions (if you can call regression a solution) that you can't think outside the box.
Click to expand...



What are you smoking crack immigrants had to check into Ellis island and some were turned away.


----------



## Vandalshandle

bear513 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
Click to expand...


Another RW nut who does not understand law. Someone who is a suspect for being an illegal alien is an "undocumented" alien.

Someone who has been convicted of being an illegal alien is guilty of being an "illegal alien", which is a misdemeanor, which is equivalent your being a criminal for having been found guilty of exceeded the speed limit.

Or, are you just disappointed that Trump has not yet removed the concept of "innocent, until proven guilty" from US Constitutional law?


----------



## Unkotare

Everyone in the US is entitled to due process, even illegals.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Vandalshandle said:


> Another RW nut who does not understand law. Someone who is a suspect for being an illegal alien is an "undocumented" alien.
> 
> Someone who has been convicted of being an illegal alien is guilty of being an "illegal alien", which is a misdemeanor, which is equivalent your being a criminal for having been found guilty of exceeded the speed limit.
> 
> Or, are you just disappointed that Trump has not yet removed the concept of "innocent, until proven guilty" from US Constitutional law?


LOL An immigration entry violation is not equivalent to a speeding ticket. As you just stated, improper entry is a misdemeanor.  A speeding ticket in nothing more than an infraction. Now, a visa overstay is equivalent to a speeding ticket, as overstaying your visa is not a crime, just an infraction of administrative law, which can be fixed by applying for and receiving an adjustment of status by getting the visa renewed or extended while still here.


----------



## Humorme

bear513 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
Click to expand...


You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.

This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.

We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:

"_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."

History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia

The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.

You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.

If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NONE.  If they have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc. neither do you.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.

If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Vandalshandle said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another RW nut who does not understand law. Someone who is a suspect for being an illegal alien is an "undocumented" alien.
> 
> Someone who has been convicted of being an illegal alien is guilty of being an "illegal alien", which is a misdemeanor, which is equivalent your being a criminal for having been found guilty of exceeded the speed limit.
> 
> Or, are you just disappointed that Trump has not yet removed the concept of "innocent, until proven guilty" from US Constitutional law?
Click to expand...


LMFAO Obama kicked out a bunch of illegal wetbacks with out do process and killed a few Americans also with out innocent until proven guilty who are you trying to fool?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Humorme said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
Click to expand...



Their is no fight to pick you're an idiot , once again I ask you a simple question if I break into your house am I a criminal yes or no?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

The simplest reply to your stupidity is what rights/liberties have you lost due to immigration law?


----------



## Humorme

antifa said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to include packing houses, slaughter houses (feed market), and restaurants. Without all these illegal workers, our economy will take a nose dive. The farmers will only be able to salvage about 15% of their crop.
> 
> Look what happened in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for chits and giggles, what would you say if we tried this:
> 
> In Alabama, instead of keeping people in prison rotting away you create tax incentives for farmers to hire ex-cons on probation.  Then, instead of just sticking people with a criminal record back on the street, they work a regular job for a season, getting some money together and preparing themselves to go back into society, getting a regular job and getting their lives together.
> 
> If those farm jobs were being taken by work - release prisoners who can't get any other job, doesn't that reduce the perceived need for so many foreign laborers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most states are already doing that. It's called slave labor. The courts keep the prisons filled so crony capitalism can continue pretending the taxpayer will never figurer out who is getting rich off their money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which states are you saying do that?  Yeah, I agree that the whole prison system deal is a joke in the United States as we have more prisons than any nation on the planet.
> 
> OTOH, when those people get out, nobody wants them.  They have a criminal record, no work history, and usually no family support system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd have to check but I'm pretty sure it will be most southern states or any state that doesn't have enough migrant workers.
Click to expand...


It sure isn't Georgia or Alabama.


----------



## Humorme

bear513 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Their is no fight to pick you're an idiot , once again I ask you a simple question if I break into your house am I a criminal yes or no?
Click to expand...


That is an irrelevant argument and it's dishonest.


----------



## Unkotare

bear513 said:


> ...
> 
> LMFAO Obama kicked out a bunch of illegal .... with out do process....




Nope.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Liquid Reigns said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The simplest reply to your stupidity is what rights/liberties have you lost due to immigration law?
Click to expand...



It's obvious..... he is an illegal criminal


----------



## Liquid Reigns

bear513 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The simplest reply to your stupidity is what rights/liberties have you lost due to immigration law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious..... he is an illegal criminal
Click to expand...

No, he's a Preamble citizen/tax protester/militia activist.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Humorme said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Their is no fight to pick you're an idiot , once again I ask you a simple question if I break into your house am I a criminal yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is an irrelevant argument and it's dishonest.
Click to expand...




Irrelevant my but, answer the question it's the same thing what you want is poor illegals to jump ahead of the from people who play by the rules and wait years to get year..



I have an idea go sneak into Mexico and see what happens..


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Unkotare said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> LMFAO Obama kicked out a bunch of illegal .... with out do process....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...

They are called Returns and Expedited Removals (no required legal hearing), and every President has done such.

When Expedited Removal Allows Deportation Without a Hearing


----------



## Humorme

bear513 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The simplest reply to your stupidity is what rights/liberties have you lost due to immigration law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious..... he is an illegal criminal
Click to expand...



Your arguments don't stand up to serious scrutiny.

Foreigners are not the same as a burglar.  If someone comes into your house uninvited, that is a crime.  When you have a Statue of Liberty in your backyard proclaiming:

_“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”_

*THAT IS AN INVITATION!
*
People come here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  *NOBODY* is twisting the arm of landlords to rent to foreigners; *NOBODY* is forcing stores to sell to foreigners.  *NOBODY* is under any obligation to shop at places that hire foreigners.  *NOBODY* tells the employer he has to hire the foreigner.

These are willing transactions being done in a free market economy.  That is NOT criminal activity.  So, unless you are ready to quit pushing the hidden agenda and be honest, You don't have much of a point.  Your analogy* fails*.

If you cannot differentiate between the Rights of man and the privileges of citizenship, you should not be in this discussion.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Humorme said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The simplest reply to your stupidity is what rights/liberties have you lost due to immigration law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious..... he is an illegal criminal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments don't stand up to serious scrutiny.
> 
> Foreigners are not the same as a burglar.  If someone comes into your house uninvited, that is a crime.  When you have a Statue of Liberty in your backyard proclaiming:
> 
> _“Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”_
> 
> *THAT IS AN INVITATION!
> *
> People come here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  *NOBODY* is twisting the arm of landlords to rent to foreigners; *NOBODY* is forcing stores to sell to foreigners.  *NOBODY* is under any obligation to shop at places that hire foreigners.  *NOBODY* tells the employer he has to hire the foreigner.
> 
> These are willing transactions being done in a free market economy.  That is NOT criminal activity.  So, unless you are ready to quit pushing the hidden agenda and be honest, You don't have much of a point.  Your analogy* fails*.
> 
> If you cannot differentiate between the Rights of man and the privileges of citizenship, you should not be in this discussion.
Click to expand...



It's the same thing, you're unbelievable so in your mind you wouldn't mind a billion people moving here and crash our social structure?


You want chaos and it's not happening


# kickalltheillegalsout

.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Your arguments don't stand up to serious scrutiny.
> 
> Foreigners are not the same as a burglar.  If someone comes into your house uninvited, that is a crime.  When you have a Statue of Liberty in your backyard proclaiming:
> 
> _“Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”_
> 
> *THAT IS AN INVITATION!*


No it's not. No immigrant coming through Ellis Island ever saw that poem. It was not on the Statue when it was given to the US by France. It was mounted into the pedestal many years after the statue was erected and has no bearing on it what so ever.



Humorme said:


> People come here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  *NOBODY* is twisting the arm of landlords to rent to foreigners; *NOBODY* is forcing stores to sell to foreigners.  *NOBODY* is under any obligation to shop at places that hire foreigners.  *NOBODY* tells the employer he has to hire the foreigner.


blah, blah, blah. 



Humorme said:


> These are willing transactions being done in a free market economy.  That is NOT criminal activity.  So, unless you are ready to quit pushing the hidden agenda and be honest, You don't have much of a point.  Your analogy* fails*.


These are transactions being performed by fraud in most cases by the illegal themselves. In fact if they are working without authorization, it is a crime, if they used a fake/false/forged SS # to obtain work, that is a crime, if they presented false documents, that is a crime, on and on and on.Your logic shows your ignorance.



Humorme said:


> If you cannot differentiate between the Rights of man and the privileges of citizenship, you should not be in this discussion.


By what right does an illegal have to enter our borders without authorization? Maybe you should learn about those very rights that you claim to know all about. SMFH


----------



## Humorme

bear513 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Their is no fight to pick you're an idiot , once again I ask you a simple question if I break into your house am I a criminal yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is an irrelevant argument and it's dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant my but, answer the question it's the same thing what you want is poor illegals to jump ahead of the from people who play by the rules and wait years to get year..
> 
> 
> 
> I have an idea go sneak into Mexico and see what happens..
Click to expand...



You seem to know a lot about me or you are talking out your ass.  Let me be up front and honest with you:

If YOU round up all the Hispanics and deport them to Mexico; ship all the blacks to Africa; deport the Muslims to Mecca, and put all the Jews on El AL with a one way ticket back to that sand pit in the Middle East, it probably wouldn't affect my life for the most part. 

When you employ the government to enforce laws aimed at suppressing Liberty, while proclaiming for all men, you then develop a personal problem with me.  I'm not submitting to tyranny by proxy.  If you want to take away someone's Liberty with the use of government, it becomes a personal matter.  The laws of stare decisis / precedent will not allow you to take away their Rights without attacking mine.

That's NOT going to happen.  When the government comes after our Liberties, it is people like *YOU* that I will put the blame on.


----------



## Humorme

bear513 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The simplest reply to your stupidity is what rights/liberties have you lost due to immigration law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious..... he is an illegal criminal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments don't stand up to serious scrutiny.
> 
> Foreigners are not the same as a burglar.  If someone comes into your house uninvited, that is a crime.  When you have a Statue of Liberty in your backyard proclaiming:
> 
> _“Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”_
> 
> *THAT IS AN INVITATION!
> *
> People come here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  *NOBODY* is twisting the arm of landlords to rent to foreigners; *NOBODY* is forcing stores to sell to foreigners.  *NOBODY* is under any obligation to shop at places that hire foreigners.  *NOBODY* tells the employer he has to hire the foreigner.
> 
> These are willing transactions being done in a free market economy.  That is NOT criminal activity.  So, unless you are ready to quit pushing the hidden agenda and be honest, You don't have much of a point.  Your analogy* fails*.
> 
> If you cannot differentiate between the Rights of man and the privileges of citizenship, you should not be in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same thing, you're unbelievable so in your mind you wouldn't mind a billion people moving here and crash our social structure?
> 
> 
> You want chaos and it's not happening
> 
> 
> # kickalltheillegalsout
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You're a liar and and sounding like an idiot.  Let the people decide and you won't have an immigration issue.  The problem gets worse with every government "_solution_" because it was planned that way.


----------



## KissMy

Liquid Reigns said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9.*
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, *not exceeding ten dollars for each person.*
> 
> 
> 
> Relying on a section that has been stricken through doesn't bode well for your argument. You do know what the importation of people was right? The slave owner was charged $10 for bringing a slave into the State. SMFH
Click to expand...

The Constitution also says "migration"

But if there is no longer a $10 limit on fees, why not charge $50,000? It would solve all the immigration problems!


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Their is no fight to pick you're an idiot , once again I ask you a simple question if I break into your house am I a criminal yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is an irrelevant argument and it's dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant my but, answer the question it's the same thing what you want is poor illegals to jump ahead of the from people who play by the rules and wait years to get year..
> 
> 
> 
> I have an idea go sneak into Mexico and see what happens..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about me or you are talking out your ass.  Let me be up front and honest with you:
> 
> If YOU round up all the Hispanics and deport them to Mexico; ship all the blacks to Africa; deport the Muslims to Mecca, and put all the Jews on El AL with a one ticket back to that sand pit in the Middle East, it probably wouldn't affect my life for the most part.
> 
> When you employ the government to enforce laws aimed at suppressing Liberty, while proclaiming for all men, you then develop a personal problem with me.  I'm not submitting to tyranny by proxy.  If you want to take away someone's Liberty with the use of government, it becomes a personal matter.  The laws of stare decisis / precedent will not allow you to take away their Rights without attacking mine.
> 
> That's NOT going to happen.  When the government comes after our Liberties, it is people like *YOU* that I will put the blame on.
Click to expand...

Liberty doesn't grant you or anybody else the right to leave your country or enter into another without authorization, it's been that way long before the colonies or the US was even founded. What liberties have you lost due to immigration laws?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

KissMy said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9.*
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, *not exceeding ten dollars for each person.*
> 
> 
> 
> Relying on a section that has been stricken through doesn't bode well for your argument. You do know what the importation of people was right? The slave owner was charged $10 for bringing a slave into the State. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if that is the case & there is no longer a $10 limit on fees, why not charge $50,000? It would solve all the immigration problems!
Click to expand...

It also says _shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight,_ which means after 1808 that section becomes irrelevant. SHRUG

Are people still importing slaves? When did immigrants and non-immigrants become imported slaves?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> The simplest reply to your stupidity is what rights/liberties have you lost due to immigration law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious..... he is an illegal criminal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments don't stand up to serious scrutiny.
> 
> Foreigners are not the same as a burglar.  If someone comes into your house uninvited, that is a crime.  When you have a Statue of Liberty in your backyard proclaiming:
> 
> _“Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”_
> 
> *THAT IS AN INVITATION!
> *
> People come here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  *NOBODY* is twisting the arm of landlords to rent to foreigners; *NOBODY* is forcing stores to sell to foreigners.  *NOBODY* is under any obligation to shop at places that hire foreigners.  *NOBODY* tells the employer he has to hire the foreigner.
> 
> These are willing transactions being done in a free market economy.  That is NOT criminal activity.  So, unless you are ready to quit pushing the hidden agenda and be honest, You don't have much of a point.  Your analogy* fails*.
> 
> If you cannot differentiate between the Rights of man and the privileges of citizenship, you should not be in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same thing, you're unbelievable so in your mind you wouldn't mind a billion people moving here and crash our social structure?
> 
> 
> You want chaos and it's not happening
> 
> 
> # kickalltheillegalsout
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a liar and and sounding like an idiot.  Let the people decide and you won't have an immigration issue.  The problem gets worse with every government "_solution_" because it was planned that way.
Click to expand...

The people have decided and the majority want the illegals removed. Now, onto the next non-sequitur.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Humorme said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Their is no fight to pick you're an idiot , once again I ask you a simple question if I break into your house am I a criminal yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is an irrelevant argument and it's dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant my but, answer the question it's the same thing what you want is poor illegals to jump ahead of the from people who play by the rules and wait years to get year..
> 
> 
> 
> I have an idea go sneak into Mexico and see what happens..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about me or you are talking out your ass.  Let me be up front and honest with you:
> 
> If YOU round up all the Hispanics and deport them to Mexico; ship all the blacks to Africa; deport the Muslims to Mecca, and put all the Jews on El AL with a one way ticket back to that sand pit in the Middle East, it probably wouldn't affect my life for the most part.
> 
> When you employ the government to enforce laws aimed at suppressing Liberty, while proclaiming for all men, you then develop a personal problem with me.  I'm not submitting to tyranny by proxy.  If you want to take away someone's Liberty with the use of government, it becomes a personal matter.  The laws of stare decisis / precedent will not allow you to take away their Rights without attacking mine.
> 
> That's NOT going to happen.  When the government comes after our Liberties, it is people like *YOU* that I will put the blame on.
Click to expand...



What are you babbling about? We are talking illegal criminals here not legal immigrants . Get it through your head.


----------



## Humorme

KissMy said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9.*
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, *not exceeding ten dollars for each person.*
> 
> 
> 
> Relying on a section that has been stricken through doesn't bode well for your argument. You do know what the importation of people was right? The slave owner was charged $10 for bringing a slave into the State. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution also says "migration"
> 
> But if there is no longer a $10 limit on fees, why not charge $50,000? It would solve all the immigration problems!
Click to expand...


Step 1 -  Begin to realize that not everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen of the United States

Step 2 -  Learn the difference between the Rights of man versus the privileges of citizenship

Step 3 -  Limit ALL privileges of citizenship to citizens

Once you get that down you are ready for the next three.


----------



## Humorme

bear513 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their is no fight to pick you're an idiot , once again I ask you a simple question if I break into your house am I a criminal yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is an irrelevant argument and it's dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant my but, answer the question it's the same thing what you want is poor illegals to jump ahead of the from people who play by the rules and wait years to get year..
> 
> 
> 
> I have an idea go sneak into Mexico and see what happens..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about me or you are talking out your ass.  Let me be up front and honest with you:
> 
> If YOU round up all the Hispanics and deport them to Mexico; ship all the blacks to Africa; deport the Muslims to Mecca, and put all the Jews on El AL with a one way ticket back to that sand pit in the Middle East, it probably wouldn't affect my life for the most part.
> 
> When you employ the government to enforce laws aimed at suppressing Liberty, while proclaiming for all men, you then develop a personal problem with me.  I'm not submitting to tyranny by proxy.  If you want to take away someone's Liberty with the use of government, it becomes a personal matter.  The laws of stare decisis / precedent will not allow you to take away their Rights without attacking mine.
> 
> That's NOT going to happen.  When the government comes after our Liberties, it is people like *YOU* that I will put the blame on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you babbling about? We are talking illegal criminals here not legal immigrants . Get it through your head.
Click to expand...


Until a person is arrested, booked, etc. then we are talking about people.  That's what we're talking about.  

If you expect us to believe you got your panties in a bunch over a technicality you don't understand, you're nuts.  I can't force you to be right.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Step 1 -  Begin to realize that not everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen of the United States


Nobody thinks all that wash up on our shores are entitled to citizenship



Humorme said:


> Step 2 -  Learn the difference between the Rights of man versus the privileges of citizenship


The rights of man are limited as granted by man in living within a society.



Humorme said:


> Step 3 -  Limit ALL privileges of citizenship to citizens


Take away more of the states rights, screw the 10th Amendment. So much for you being a strict constructionist and a Constitutionalist. SMFH



Humorme said:


> Once you get that down you are ready for the next three.


YAWN


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their is no fight to pick you're an idiot , once again I ask you a simple question if I break into your house am I a criminal yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an irrelevant argument and it's dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant my but, answer the question it's the same thing what you want is poor illegals to jump ahead of the from people who play by the rules and wait years to get year..
> 
> 
> 
> I have an idea go sneak into Mexico and see what happens..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about me or you are talking out your ass.  Let me be up front and honest with you:
> 
> If YOU round up all the Hispanics and deport them to Mexico; ship all the blacks to Africa; deport the Muslims to Mecca, and put all the Jews on El AL with a one way ticket back to that sand pit in the Middle East, it probably wouldn't affect my life for the most part.
> 
> When you employ the government to enforce laws aimed at suppressing Liberty, while proclaiming for all men, you then develop a personal problem with me.  I'm not submitting to tyranny by proxy.  If you want to take away someone's Liberty with the use of government, it becomes a personal matter.  The laws of stare decisis / precedent will not allow you to take away their Rights without attacking mine.
> 
> That's NOT going to happen.  When the government comes after our Liberties, it is people like *YOU* that I will put the blame on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you babbling about? We are talking illegal criminals here not legal immigrants . Get it through your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until a person is arrested, booked, etc. then we are talking about people.  That's what we're talking about.
> 
> If you expect us to believe you got your panties in a bunch over a technicality you don't understand, you're nuts.  I can't force you to be right.
Click to expand...

Illegals are removed all the time without hearings, its called Expedited Removal, so much for due process. SMFH


----------



## Wyatt earp

Humorme said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their is no fight to pick you're an idiot , once again I ask you a simple question if I break into your house am I a criminal yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an irrelevant argument and it's dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant my but, answer the question it's the same thing what you want is poor illegals to jump ahead of the from people who play by the rules and wait years to get year..
> 
> 
> 
> I have an idea go sneak into Mexico and see what happens..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about me or you are talking out your ass.  Let me be up front and honest with you:
> 
> If YOU round up all the Hispanics and deport them to Mexico; ship all the blacks to Africa; deport the Muslims to Mecca, and put all the Jews on El AL with a one way ticket back to that sand pit in the Middle East, it probably wouldn't affect my life for the most part.
> 
> When you employ the government to enforce laws aimed at suppressing Liberty, while proclaiming for all men, you then develop a personal problem with me.  I'm not submitting to tyranny by proxy.  If you want to take away someone's Liberty with the use of government, it becomes a personal matter.  The laws of stare decisis / precedent will not allow you to take away their Rights without attacking mine.
> 
> That's NOT going to happen.  When the government comes after our Liberties, it is people like *YOU* that I will put the blame on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you babbling about? We are talking illegal criminals here not legal immigrants . Get it through your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until a person is arrested, booked, etc. then we are talking about people.  That's what we're talking about.
> 
> If you expect us to believe you got your panties in a bunch over a technicality you don't understand, you're nuts.  I can't force you to be right.
Click to expand...


We are talking about criminals here they know they are criminals...duh


----------



## antifa

Unkotare said:


> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85% of our crops will rot in the field without illegally migrant workers. They deserve sanctuary in all 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to include packing houses, slaughter houses (feed market), and restaurants. Without all these illegal workers, our economy will take a nose dive. The farmers will only be able to salvage about 15% of their crop.
> 
> Look what happened in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for chits and giggles, what would you say if we tried this:
> 
> In Alabama, instead of keeping people in prison rotting away you create tax incentives for farmers to hire ex-cons on probation.  Then, instead of just sticking people with a criminal record back on the street, they work a regular job for a season, getting some money together and preparing themselves to go back into society, getting a regular job and getting their lives together.
> 
> If those farm jobs were being taken by work - release prisoners who can't get any other job, doesn't that reduce the perceived need for so many foreign laborers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most states are already doing that. It's called slave labor. The courts keep the prisons filled so crony capitalism can continue pretending the taxpayer will never figurer [sic] out who is getting rich off their money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of 'post' belongs on the conspiracy forum.
Click to expand...

What is your opinion thread doing in philosophy?


----------



## Slyhunter

Humorme said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NONE.  If they have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc. neither do you.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

For me it has nothing to do with Race. Mexican, Chinese, German, I don't fucking care. For me it is my ability to provide for my family. I do what is best for myself and my family. I want laws passed that help me and my family thrive. And what doesn't help me and my family thrive is people coming here and doing work I used too do for less money than I did it. It is really that simple. Americans first. Not whites first, I'll take Mexicans and blacks and purples already on team America as a part of my team and of whom I'm fighting/arguing for. But no foreigners. Not until every American who wants a job has a job with a living wage!


----------



## Slyhunter

Liquid Reigns said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The simplest reply to your stupidity is what rights/liberties have you lost due to immigration law?
Click to expand...

The right to make enough money to pay rent and feed my family on a days labor without having to compete with those that have less than I from countries not of my own.


----------



## jon_berzerk

JoeMoma said:


> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!




true but only as long as they vote democrat


----------



## Unkotare

antifa said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to include packing houses, slaughter houses (feed market), and restaurants. Without all these illegal workers, our economy will take a nose dive. The farmers will only be able to salvage about 15% of their crop.
> 
> Look what happened in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for chits and giggles, what would you say if we tried this:
> 
> In Alabama, instead of keeping people in prison rotting away you create tax incentives for farmers to hire ex-cons on probation.  Then, instead of just sticking people with a criminal record back on the street, they work a regular job for a season, getting some money together and preparing themselves to go back into society, getting a regular job and getting their lives together.
> 
> If those farm jobs were being taken by work - release prisoners who can't get any other job, doesn't that reduce the perceived need for so many foreign laborers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most states are already doing that. It's called slave labor. The courts keep the prisons filled so crony capitalism can continue pretending the taxpayer will never figurer [sic] out who is getting rich off their money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of 'post' belongs on the conspiracy forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your opinion thread doing in philosophy?
Click to expand...



???????????


----------



## Unkotare

Slyhunter said:


> ...... Not until every American who wants a job has a job with a living wage!





Irrational. You assume some correlation between every person without a job and every position in need of a qualified applicant. And "living wage" is a meaningless term.


----------



## Slyhunter

Unkotare said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... Not until every American who wants a job has a job with a living wage!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrational. You assume some correlation between every person without a job and every position in need of a qualified applicant. And "living wage" is a meaningless term.
Click to expand...

It's only meaningless if you make it meaningless.
Every person who works for a living should be able to afford food, rent, electric, water, vehicle, phone. You want more than that you make more than that.



This is not living


----------



## Unkotare

Immature fantasies divorced from reality are no basis for policy decisions.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Slyhunter said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... Not until every American who wants a job has a job with a living wage!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrational. You assume some correlation between every person without a job and every position in need of a qualified applicant. And "living wage" is a meaningless term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's only meaningless if you make it meaningless.
> Every person who works for a living should be able to afford food, rent, electric, water, vehicle, phone. You want more than that you make more than that.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not living
Click to expand...



So why do people in blue states vote against their own interests?


----------



## Vandalshandle

bear513 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another RW nut who does not understand law. Someone who is a suspect for being an illegal alien is an "undocumented" alien.
> 
> Someone who has been convicted of being an illegal alien is guilty of being an "illegal alien", which is a misdemeanor, which is equivalent your being a criminal for having been found guilty of exceeded the speed limit.
> 
> Or, are you just disappointed that Trump has not yet removed the concept of "innocent, until proven guilty" from US Constitutional law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO Obama kicked out a bunch of illegal wetbacks with out do process and killed a few Americans also with out innocent until proven guilty who are you trying to fool?
Click to expand...

Well, now, Bear, I think that you should respond to my post with either a defence of your support of convicting people of crimes, of which they have not been convicted in court (which is EXACTLY what your previous post advocates), or, else you should figure out a way to respond without blaming everything on Obama, who did not, in fact,  try to find people guilty without trials (which would, of course, have taken away your civil liberties).


----------



## Wyatt earp

Vandalshandle said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another RW nut who does not understand law. Someone who is a suspect for being an illegal alien is an "undocumented" alien.
> 
> Someone who has been convicted of being an illegal alien is guilty of being an "illegal alien", which is a misdemeanor, which is equivalent your being a criminal for having been found guilty of exceeded the speed limit.
> 
> Or, are you just disappointed that Trump has not yet removed the concept of "innocent, until proven guilty" from US Constitutional law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO Obama kicked out a bunch of illegal wetbacks with out do process and killed a few Americans also with out innocent until proven guilty who are you trying to fool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, now, Bear, I think that you should respond to my post with either a defence of your support of convicting people of crimes, of which they have not been convicted in court (which is EXACTLY what your previous post advocates), or, else you should figure out a way to respond without blaming everything on Obama, who did not, in fact,  try to find people guilty without trials (which would, of course, have taken away your civil liberties).
Click to expand...



Wait so Obama and bush jr killed American citizens with out due process (drones and we'll documented) and you don't think they kicked out illegals without a trial (,also well documented) 
Come on pal , those are facts.


----------



## KissMy

Humorme said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9.*
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, *not exceeding ten dollars for each person.*
> 
> 
> 
> Relying on a section that has been stricken through doesn't bode well for your argument. You do know what the importation of people was right? The slave owner was charged $10 for bringing a slave into the State. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution also says "migration"
> 
> But if there is no longer a $10 limit on fees, why not charge $50,000? It would solve all the immigration problems!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Step 1 -  Begin to realize that not everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen of the United States
> 
> Step 2 -  Learn the difference between the Rights of man versus the privileges of citizenship
> 
> Step 3 -  Limit ALL privileges of citizenship to citizens
> 
> Once you get that down you are ready for the next three.
Click to expand...


Learn that crap you spew is Unconstitutional & retarded. However I am for improving the constitution.

You are a Retard to want Limit ALL privileges of citizenship to citizens. We must bring in scientist, doctors, engineers, programmers, politically persecuted asylum seekers & spouses of US citizens, etc. up to 0.3% of our population per year. They should pay a $10K immigration fee.

I am for banning border jumpers, illegal immigrants & visa overstays. The ones who have been here less than 3 years should be deported ASAP.  Any criminals or welfare dependents should also be deported ASAP. All good working ones here 3 years & over should have option of paying $20K fee + $10K for every year they failed to pay SS & income taxes to immediately become legal documented US citizen, or go before immigration Judge & face deportation.


----------



## danielpalos

Liquid Reigns said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the federal borders because this is a federal problem since 1808, not a State problem, since then.
> 
> 
> 
> Using a slave paragraph from the USC that has since been dropped by the very language of the USC doesn't bode well for your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A market friendly visa program that allows participants to "try their luck" in our markets; would be a boon to any State that generates revenue from tourism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is already in place, its called the VWP (Visa Waiver Program).
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A federal id should be a requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called the US Passport.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revenue from the visa system could help fund unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, so native labor can, "retool."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The revenue should go to fund the visa program and all involved in it such as DHS, etc.
Click to expand...

If the right wing plan works, why any more effort on a wall and other expenses?  

We could be solving this federal problem permanently via capitalism, not socialism on a national basis.

The right wing can't seem to handle it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

JoeMoma said:


> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!


The rightwing myth of the ‘sanctuary city.’

Local jurisdictions are at liberty to allocate law enforcement resources as they see fit – such as not unilaterally detaining undocumented immigrants.

If requested by Federal authorities to assist with detaining an undocumented immigrant, local jurisdictions will comply.

But local jurisdictions cannot be compelled to enforce Federal law, and local jurisdictions electing to not use their law enforcement resources to detain those undocumented does not render them ‘sanctuary cities.’


----------



## Humorme

Slyhunter said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NONE.  If they have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc. neither do you.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For me it has nothing to do with Race. Mexican, Chinese, German, I don't fucking care. For me it is my ability to provide for my family. I do what is best for myself and my family. I want laws passed that help me and my family thrive. And what doesn't help me and my family thrive is people coming here and doing work I used too do for less money than I did it. It is really that simple. Americans first. Not whites first, I'll take Mexicans and blacks and purples already on team America as a part of my team and of whom I'm fighting/arguing for. But no foreigners. Not until every American who wants a job has a job with a living wage!
Click to expand...


Just so we're clear, what you're advocating is National Socialism lite.  It is not the duty or obligation of any employer to provide you with a job.

My objective is to get the government out of my life so that I can provide for me and my family.


----------



## Humorme

KissMy said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9.*
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, *not exceeding ten dollars for each person.*
> 
> 
> 
> Relying on a section that has been stricken through doesn't bode well for your argument. You do know what the importation of people was right? The slave owner was charged $10 for bringing a slave into the State. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution also says "migration"
> 
> But if there is no longer a $10 limit on fees, why not charge $50,000? It would solve all the immigration problems!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Step 1 -  Begin to realize that not everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen of the United States
> 
> Step 2 -  Learn the difference between the Rights of man versus the privileges of citizenship
> 
> Step 3 -  Limit ALL privileges of citizenship to citizens
> 
> Once you get that down you are ready for the next three.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn that crap you spew is Unconstitutional & retarded. However I am for improving the constitution.
> 
> You are a Retard to want Limit ALL privileges of citizenship to citizens. We must bring in scientist, doctors, engineers, programmers, politically persecuted asylum seekers & spouses of US citizens, etc. up to 0.3% of our population per year. They should pay a $10K immigration fee.
> 
> I am for banning border jumpers, illegal immigrants & visa overstays. The ones who have been here less than 3 years should be deported ASAP.  Any criminals or welfare dependents should also be deported ASAP. All good working ones here 3 years & over should have option of paying $20K fee + $10K for every year they failed to pay SS & income taxes to immediately become legal documented US citizen, or go before immigration Judge & face deportation.
Click to expand...


You do realize that by disagreeing with me, you've now committed to spending tax dollars to provide health care to undocumented foreigners don't you?  You've agreed to spend your tax dollars to educate children whose parents have no papers to be here.  You think that is sound policy?  I see that kind of policy as being irrational since it encourages people to come here regardless of any perceived criminal consequences.

Yes, *I do believe* that only citizens should vote in our elections. *I do believe *that a free education should be limited to citizens. * I do believe* that only citizens should be able to avail themselves of Social Security, welfare, unemployment benefits, disability from Uncle Scam.  I won't apologize for it.

The people are your side of this are going to begin wondering who the real retard is.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NONE.  If they have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc. neither do you.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For me it has nothing to do with Race. Mexican, Chinese, German, I don't fucking care. For me it is my ability to provide for my family. I do what is best for myself and my family. I want laws passed that help me and my family thrive. And what doesn't help me and my family thrive is people coming here and doing work I used too do for less money than I did it. It is really that simple. Americans first. Not whites first, I'll take Mexicans and blacks and purples already on team America as a part of my team and of whom I'm fighting/arguing for. But no foreigners. Not until every American who wants a job has a job with a living wage!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just so we're clear, what you're advocating is National Socialism lite.  It is not the duty or obligation of any employer to provide you with a job.
> 
> My objective is to get the government out of my life so that I can provide for me and my family.
Click to expand...

Not even in right wing, Right to Work States?


----------



## Humorme

Vandalshandle said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another RW nut who does not understand law. Someone who is a suspect for being an illegal alien is an "undocumented" alien.
> 
> Someone who has been convicted of being an illegal alien is guilty of being an "illegal alien", which is a misdemeanor, which is equivalent your being a criminal for having been found guilty of exceeded the speed limit.
> 
> Or, are you just disappointed that Trump has not yet removed the concept of "innocent, until proven guilty" from US Constitutional law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO Obama kicked out a bunch of illegal wetbacks with out do process and killed a few Americans also with out innocent until proven guilty who are you trying to fool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, now, Bear, I think that you should respond to my post with either a defence of your support of convicting people of crimes, of which they have not been convicted in court (which is EXACTLY what your previous post advocates), or, else you should figure out a way to respond without blaming everything on Obama, who did not, in fact,  try to find people guilty without trials (which would, of course, have taken away your civil liberties).
Click to expand...


Those who are so gung ho to punish undocumented foreigners have zero concept of Due Process.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NONE.  If they have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc. neither do you.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For me it has nothing to do with Race. Mexican, Chinese, German, I don't fucking care. For me it is my ability to provide for my family. I do what is best for myself and my family. I want laws passed that help me and my family thrive. And what doesn't help me and my family thrive is people coming here and doing work I used too do for less money than I did it. It is really that simple. Americans first. Not whites first, I'll take Mexicans and blacks and purples already on team America as a part of my team and of whom I'm fighting/arguing for. But no foreigners. Not until every American who wants a job has a job with a living wage!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just so we're clear, what you're advocating is National Socialism lite.  It is not the duty or obligation of any employer to provide you with a job.
> 
> My objective is to get the government out of my life so that I can provide for me and my family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even in right wing, Right to Work States?
Click to expand...


An employer should have private property Rights which includes the Right to hire whomever they think will best do the job.  In other words, I support every Americans Right to discriminate.

The privileges of citizenship, however, should not extend to non-citizens. * IF *the government were to create a way for those who are undocumented to work "_legally_" as the extremists want to call it, if they are paying into the system via taxes, they should be able to draw against it just like anybody else.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

An immigrant is entitled to a presumption of innocence and is not ‘illegal’ until such time as he has been found guilty in a court of law of entering the country absent authorization – that one is undocumented does not mean he’s ‘illegal.’

That an immigrant might lack documentation doesn’t warrant his detention by local jurisdictions, who should do so pursuant solely to a Federal warrant.

Hence the myth of a ‘sanctuary city’ – one cannot afford ‘sanctuary’ to someone who is innocent of a crime.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another RW nut who does not understand law. Someone who is a suspect for being an illegal alien is an "undocumented" alien.
> 
> Someone who has been convicted of being an illegal alien is guilty of being an "illegal alien", which is a misdemeanor, which is equivalent your being a criminal for having been found guilty of exceeded the speed limit.
> 
> Or, are you just disappointed that Trump has not yet removed the concept of "innocent, until proven guilty" from US Constitutional law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO Obama kicked out a bunch of illegal wetbacks with out do process and killed a few Americans also with out innocent until proven guilty who are you trying to fool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, now, Bear, I think that you should respond to my post with either a defence of your support of convicting people of crimes, of which they have not been convicted in court (which is EXACTLY what your previous post advocates), or, else you should figure out a way to respond without blaming everything on Obama, who did not, in fact,  try to find people guilty without trials (which would, of course, have taken away your civil liberties).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who are so gung ho to punish undocumented foreigners have zero concept of Due Process.
Click to expand...

Socialism on a national basis is all they seem to know.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NONE.  If they have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc. neither do you.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For me it has nothing to do with Race. Mexican, Chinese, German, I don't fucking care. For me it is my ability to provide for my family. I do what is best for myself and my family. I want laws passed that help me and my family thrive. And what doesn't help me and my family thrive is people coming here and doing work I used too do for less money than I did it. It is really that simple. Americans first. Not whites first, I'll take Mexicans and blacks and purples already on team America as a part of my team and of whom I'm fighting/arguing for. But no foreigners. Not until every American who wants a job has a job with a living wage!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just so we're clear, what you're advocating is National Socialism lite.  It is not the duty or obligation of any employer to provide you with a job.
> 
> My objective is to get the government out of my life so that I can provide for me and my family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even in right wing, Right to Work States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An employer should have private property Rights which includes the Right to hire whomever they think will best do the job.  In other words, I support every Americans Right to discriminate.
> 
> The privileges of citizenship, however, should not extend to non-citizens. * IF *the government were to create a way for those who are undocumented to work "_legally_" as the extremists want to call it, if they are paying into the system via taxes, they should be able to draw against it just like anybody else.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the legal concept of employment at will.

It is the right wing that has a problem with equal protection of the law.

Unemployment compensation is a more cost effective and market friendly social safety net.


----------



## Vandalshandle

bear513 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another RW nut who does not understand law. Someone who is a suspect for being an illegal alien is an "undocumented" alien.
> 
> Someone who has been convicted of being an illegal alien is guilty of being an "illegal alien", which is a misdemeanor, which is equivalent your being a criminal for having been found guilty of exceeded the speed limit.
> 
> Or, are you just disappointed that Trump has not yet removed the concept of "innocent, until proven guilty" from US Constitutional law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO Obama kicked out a bunch of illegal wetbacks with out do process and killed a few Americans also with out innocent until proven guilty who are you trying to fool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, now, Bear, I think that you should respond to my post with either a defence of your support of convicting people of crimes, of which they have not been convicted in court (which is EXACTLY what your previous post advocates), or, else you should figure out a way to respond without blaming everything on Obama, who did not, in fact,  try to find people guilty without trials (which would, of course, have taken away your civil liberties).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait so Obama and bush jr killed American citizens with out due process (drones and we'll documented) and you don't think they kicked out illegals without a trial (,also well documented)
> Come on pal , those are facts.
Click to expand...


Perhaps, you can link where illegals have been kicked out of the country without a trial. Now, I know that you don't know anything about the issue, so I will correct your first mistake, before you even make it. If the Border Patrol catches someone in the process of crossing the border, or soon thereafter, the person is sometimes given a choice as to whether or not he wants to be arrested, and go to trial, or to volunteer to be taken back to the border. This is not being "kicked out". The person must volunteer to cross the border. Get out your 8th grade Civics book, and read up on the fact that in America, nobody is guilty until proven guilty. While you are at it, read this:

Detainees Sentenced in Seconds in ‘Streamline’ Justice on Border


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9.*
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, *not exceeding ten dollars for each person.*
> 
> 
> 
> Relying on a section that has been stricken through doesn't bode well for your argument. You do know what the importation of people was right? The slave owner was charged $10 for bringing a slave into the State. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution also says "migration"
> 
> But if there is no longer a $10 limit on fees, why not charge $50,000? It would solve all the immigration problems!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Step 1 -  Begin to realize that not everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen of the United States
> 
> Step 2 -  Learn the difference between the Rights of man versus the privileges of citizenship
> 
> Step 3 -  Limit ALL privileges of citizenship to citizens
> 
> Once you get that down you are ready for the next three.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn that crap you spew is Unconstitutional & retarded. However I am for improving the constitution.
> 
> You are a Retard to want Limit ALL privileges of citizenship to citizens. We must bring in scientist, doctors, engineers, programmers, politically persecuted asylum seekers & spouses of US citizens, etc. up to 0.3% of our population per year. They should pay a $10K immigration fee.
> 
> I am for banning border jumpers, illegal immigrants & visa overstays. The ones who have been here less than 3 years should be deported ASAP.  Any criminals or welfare dependents should also be deported ASAP. All good working ones here 3 years & over should have option of paying $20K fee + $10K for every year they failed to pay SS & income taxes to immediately become legal documented US citizen, or go before immigration Judge & face deportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that by disagreeing with me, you've now committed to spending tax dollars to provide health care to undocumented foreigners don't you?  You've agreed to spend your tax dollars to educate children whose parents have no papers to be here.  You think that is sound policy?  I see that kind of policy as being irrational since it encourages people to come here regardless of any perceived criminal consequences.
> 
> Yes, *I do believe* that only citizens should vote in our elections. *I do believe *that a free education should be limited to citizens. * I do believe* that only citizens should be able to avail themselves of Social Security, welfare, unemployment benefits, disability from Uncle Scam.  I won't apologize for it.
> 
> The people are your side of this are going to begin wondering who the real retard is.
Click to expand...

Unemployment and welfare are at the state level, not federal. Through Totalization Agreements some are entitled to Social Security benefits. SMFH

By disagreeing with you then we are committed to spending tax dollars to provide health care and education to illegals? Yet you claim they pay into the tax system, and is it not taxes that pay for education and some emergency medical they use? Sounds like you want your cake and to eat it too. You speak with forked tongue White Nationalist.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it so no name calling.  I am right of center and have never voted for nor supported a liberal, democrat, or anyone left of center.
> 
> In my view there should be no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  As one of our founding fathers put it:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."   A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> Early in America's history, people came from every corner of the earth to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  At the same time, nobody except whites could become citizens.
> 
> Why we think that everybody that washes up on our shores should become a citizen, get a free education, be afforded welfare, be extended the privilege of voting and force their beliefs down our throats has always been a mystery to me - *ESPECIALLY* when those people fled somewhere to come here.
> 
> I've been kicked like a dog on these discussion boards because those advocating the ultimate *POLICE STATE* cannot see the end game for which they are fighting.  Let us pretend that you win.
> 
> You build a wall.  You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing.  So, anyway you kick them out along with their America born children.  Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key.  Problem solved.  Right?  Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not.  You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  They want to come _home_.  Sorry guys, you can't keep them out.  They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves.  They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills.  Now what do you do?  I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with.  I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
> 
> I have more questions along with a realistic way to eliminate the issue altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another RW nut who does not understand law. Someone who is a suspect for being an illegal alien is an "undocumented" alien.
> 
> Someone who has been convicted of being an illegal alien is guilty of being an "illegal alien", which is a misdemeanor, which is equivalent your being a criminal for having been found guilty of exceeded the speed limit.
> 
> Or, are you just disappointed that Trump has not yet removed the concept of "innocent, until proven guilty" from US Constitutional law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO Obama kicked out a bunch of illegal wetbacks with out do process and killed a few Americans also with out innocent until proven guilty who are you trying to fool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, now, Bear, I think that you should respond to my post with either a defence of your support of convicting people of crimes, of which they have not been convicted in court (which is EXACTLY what your previous post advocates), or, else you should figure out a way to respond without blaming everything on Obama, who did not, in fact,  try to find people guilty without trials (which would, of course, have taken away your civil liberties).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who are so gung ho to punish undocumented foreigners have zero concept of Due Process.
Click to expand...

Explain Expedited Removal and why when used there is no due process.....I'll wait. LMFAO at your sheer stupidity.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> An employer should have private property Rights which includes the Right to hire whomever they think will best do the job.  In other words, I support every Americans Right to discriminate.


They have that right already, they are simply limited to the pool of eligible workers. SHRUG



Humorme said:


> The privileges of citizenship, however, should not extend to non-citizens. * IF *the government were to create a way for those who are undocumented to work "_legally_" as the extremists want to call it, if they are paying into the system via taxes, they should be able to draw against it just like anybody else.


They can via Totalization Agreements. Some can even request those very taxes be refunded in their 1040 tax forms.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> An immigrant is entitled to a presumption of innocence and is not ‘illegal’ until such time as he has been found guilty in a court of law of entering the country absent authorization – that one is undocumented does not mean he’s ‘illegal.’
> 
> That an immigrant might lack documentation doesn’t warrant his detention by local jurisdictions, who should do so pursuant solely to a Federal warrant.
> 
> Hence the myth of a ‘sanctuary city’ – one cannot afford ‘sanctuary’ to someone who is innocent of a crime.


Explain Expedited Removal where in no due process is required. SMFH


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Vandalshandle said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another RW nut who does not understand law. Someone who is a suspect for being an illegal alien is an "undocumented" alien.
> 
> Someone who has been convicted of being an illegal alien is guilty of being an "illegal alien", which is a misdemeanor, which is equivalent your being a criminal for having been found guilty of exceeded the speed limit.
> 
> Or, are you just disappointed that Trump has not yet removed the concept of "innocent, until proven guilty" from US Constitutional law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO Obama kicked out a bunch of illegal wetbacks with out do process and killed a few Americans also with out innocent until proven guilty who are you trying to fool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, now, Bear, I think that you should respond to my post with either a defence of your support of convicting people of crimes, of which they have not been convicted in court (which is EXACTLY what your previous post advocates), or, else you should figure out a way to respond without blaming everything on Obama, who did not, in fact,  try to find people guilty without trials (which would, of course, have taken away your civil liberties).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait so Obama and bush jr killed American citizens with out due process (drones and we'll documented) and you don't think they kicked out illegals without a trial (,also well documented)
> Come on pal , those are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, you can link where illegals have been kicked out of the country without a trial. Now, I know that you don't know anything about the issue, so I will correct your first mistake, before you even make it. If the Border Patrol catches someone in the process of crossing the border, or soon thereafter, the person is sometimes given a choice as to whether or not he wants to be arrested, and go to trial, or to volunteer to be taken back to the border. This is not being "kicked out". The person must volunteer to cross the border. Get out your 8th grade Civics book, and read up on the fact that in America, nobody is guilty until proven guilty. While you are at it, read this:
> 
> Detainees Sentenced in Seconds in ‘Streamline’ Justice on Border
Click to expand...

I suggest you look into Expedited Removal. Expedited removal - Wikipedia

Maybe it is you that doesn't know as much as you think you do wanna-be cop.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NONE.  If they have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc. neither do you.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> For me it has nothing to do with Race. Mexican, Chinese, German, I don't fucking care. For me it is my ability to provide for my family. I do what is best for myself and my family. I want laws passed that help me and my family thrive. And what doesn't help me and my family thrive is people coming here and doing work I used too do for less money than I did it. It is really that simple. Americans first. Not whites first, I'll take Mexicans and blacks and purples already on team America as a part of my team and of whom I'm fighting/arguing for. But no foreigners. Not until every American who wants a job has a job with a living wage!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just so we're clear, what you're advocating is National Socialism lite.  It is not the duty or obligation of any employer to provide you with a job.
> 
> My objective is to get the government out of my life so that I can provide for me and my family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even in right wing, Right to Work States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An employer should have private property Rights which includes the Right to hire whomever they think will best do the job.  In other words, I support every Americans Right to discriminate.
> 
> The privileges of citizenship, however, should not extend to non-citizens. * IF *the government were to create a way for those who are undocumented to work "_legally_" as the extremists want to call it, if they are paying into the system via taxes, they should be able to draw against it just like anybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with the legal concept of employment at will.
> 
> It is the right wing that has a problem with equal protection of the law.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is a more cost effective and market friendly social safety net.
Click to expand...


In the 1970s through the early 2000s I considered myself right of center as a student of American history and constitutional government.  Today, the people you call the right wing are 180 degrees *opposite* of the old kind of people you would find in the John Birch Society, Young Republicans Club, National Taxpayers Union, and the Conservative Caucus.

Begrudgingly, I have to admit that you're right on this.  That's really hard to admit to.  Those on the right have *NO* conception of innocent until proven guilty.   They've found a convenient *pretext* to call people "_illegal aliens_" without ever having to extend Due Process because that it is more palatable than calling them mud people, sand (expletive deleted), etc. wherein their true motives become a bit clearer.

Bernie Sanders tells people up front that he is a socialist.  Those who want a perpetual war over the immigration issue - one to the point that they cannot discuss the issue rationally want National Socialism and from time to time, the facts emerge in their angry and spiteful posts.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Liquid Reigns said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another RW nut who does not understand law. Someone who is a suspect for being an illegal alien is an "undocumented" alien.
> 
> Someone who has been convicted of being an illegal alien is guilty of being an "illegal alien", which is a misdemeanor, which is equivalent your being a criminal for having been found guilty of exceeded the speed limit.
> 
> Or, are you just disappointed that Trump has not yet removed the concept of "innocent, until proven guilty" from US Constitutional law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO Obama kicked out a bunch of illegal wetbacks with out do process and killed a few Americans also with out innocent until proven guilty who are you trying to fool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, now, Bear, I think that you should respond to my post with either a defence of your support of convicting people of crimes, of which they have not been convicted in court (which is EXACTLY what your previous post advocates), or, else you should figure out a way to respond without blaming everything on Obama, who did not, in fact,  try to find people guilty without trials (which would, of course, have taken away your civil liberties).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait so Obama and bush jr killed American citizens with out due process (drones and we'll documented) and you don't think they kicked out illegals without a trial (,also well documented)
> Come on pal , those are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, you can link where illegals have been kicked out of the country without a trial. Now, I know that you don't know anything about the issue, so I will correct your first mistake, before you even make it. If the Border Patrol catches someone in the process of crossing the border, or soon thereafter, the person is sometimes given a choice as to whether or not he wants to be arrested, and go to trial, or to volunteer to be taken back to the border. This is not being "kicked out". The person must volunteer to cross the border. Get out your 8th grade Civics book, and read up on the fact that in America, nobody is guilty until proven guilty. While you are at it, read this:
> 
> Detainees Sentenced in Seconds in ‘Streamline’ Justice on Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you look into Expedited Removal. Expedited removal - Wikipedia
> 
> Maybe it is you that doesn't know as much as you think you do wanna-be cop.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. From your source:

"*Status claimants[edit]*
Anybody who states under oath to a border agent that he or she is a citizen, lawful permanent resident, or asylee cannot be subject to expedited removal and gets an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge. Lying about one's status in these circumstances may make one inadmissible and could even lead to a lifetime bar to U.S. admission.[1]

*Voluntary return[edit]*
The officer at a designated port of entry may discretionarily give people being turned back the option of "voluntary return" as an alternative to expedited removal. A voluntary return also goes on the person's immigration record, but has fewer serious legal consequences for attempted future entry than an order of removal.[1]


Of course,  I already explained this in post 109, but it does not dovetail with with your desire to take away civil liberties from US citizens, so you do not accept it, even from your own source..


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO Obama kicked out a bunch of illegal wetbacks with out do process and killed a few Americans also with out innocent until proven guilty who are you trying to fool?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now, Bear, I think that you should respond to my post with either a defence of your support of convicting people of crimes, of which they have not been convicted in court (which is EXACTLY what your previous post advocates), or, else you should figure out a way to respond without blaming everything on Obama, who did not, in fact,  try to find people guilty without trials (which would, of course, have taken away your civil liberties).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait so Obama and bush jr killed American citizens with out due process (drones and we'll documented) and you don't think they kicked out illegals without a trial (,also well documented)
> Come on pal , those are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, you can link where illegals have been kicked out of the country without a trial. Now, I know that you don't know anything about the issue, so I will correct your first mistake, before you even make it. If the Border Patrol catches someone in the process of crossing the border, or soon thereafter, the person is sometimes given a choice as to whether or not he wants to be arrested, and go to trial, or to volunteer to be taken back to the border. This is not being "kicked out". The person must volunteer to cross the border. Get out your 8th grade Civics book, and read up on the fact that in America, nobody is guilty until proven guilty. While you are at it, read this:
> 
> Detainees Sentenced in Seconds in ‘Streamline’ Justice on Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you look into Expedited Removal. Expedited removal - Wikipedia
> 
> Maybe it is you that doesn't know as much as you think you do wanna-be cop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough. From your source:
> 
> "*Status claimants[edit]*
> Anybody who states under oath to a border agent that he or she is a citizen, lawful permanent resident, or asylee cannot be subject to expedited removal and gets an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge. Lying about one's status in these circumstances may make one inadmissible and could even lead to a lifetime bar to U.S. admission.[1]
> 
> *Voluntary return[edit]*
> The officer at a designated port of entry may discretionarily give people being turned back the option of "voluntary return" as an alternative to expedited removal. A voluntary return also goes on the person's immigration record, but has fewer serious legal consequences for attempted future entry than an order of removal.[1]
> 
> 
> Of course,  I already explained this in post 109, but it does not dovetail with with your desire to take away civil liberties from US citizens, so you do not accept it, even from your own source..
Click to expand...

I have no desire to take away civil liberties from citizens, and immigration law does no such thing. An illegal can be charged and given a hearing, and in many instances they are, yet it is not a requirement in order to remove an illegal from the US, the crime is still recognized and the result is the same without due process.

There is also Administrative Removal which doesn't require due process. So now there are 2 types of removals that doesn't require due process. 





> Administrative removal for aggravated felons: This is a process where those convicted of an aggravated felony may be removed immediately after finishing their prison term without going through removal proceedings.



Now explain how immigration law effects a citizens civil liberties. SMFH


----------



## Vandalshandle

Liquid Reigns said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now, Bear, I think that you should respond to my post with either a defence of your support of convicting people of crimes, of which they have not been convicted in court (which is EXACTLY what your previous post advocates), or, else you should figure out a way to respond without blaming everything on Obama, who did not, in fact,  try to find people guilty without trials (which would, of course, have taken away your civil liberties).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait so Obama and bush jr killed American citizens with out due process (drones and we'll documented) and you don't think they kicked out illegals without a trial (,also well documented)
> Come on pal , those are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, you can link where illegals have been kicked out of the country without a trial. Now, I know that you don't know anything about the issue, so I will correct your first mistake, before you even make it. If the Border Patrol catches someone in the process of crossing the border, or soon thereafter, the person is sometimes given a choice as to whether or not he wants to be arrested, and go to trial, or to volunteer to be taken back to the border. This is not being "kicked out". The person must volunteer to cross the border. Get out your 8th grade Civics book, and read up on the fact that in America, nobody is guilty until proven guilty. While you are at it, read this:
> 
> Detainees Sentenced in Seconds in ‘Streamline’ Justice on Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you look into Expedited Removal. Expedited removal - Wikipedia
> 
> Maybe it is you that doesn't know as much as you think you do wanna-be cop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough. From your source:
> 
> "*Status claimants[edit]*
> Anybody who states under oath to a border agent that he or she is a citizen, lawful permanent resident, or asylee cannot be subject to expedited removal and gets an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge. Lying about one's status in these circumstances may make one inadmissible and could even lead to a lifetime bar to U.S. admission.[1]
> 
> *Voluntary return[edit]*
> The officer at a designated port of entry may discretionarily give people being turned back the option of "voluntary return" as an alternative to expedited removal. A voluntary return also goes on the person's immigration record, but has fewer serious legal consequences for attempted future entry than an order of removal.[1]
> 
> 
> Of course,  I already explained this in post 109, but it does not dovetail with with your desire to take away civil liberties from US citizens, so you do not accept it, even from your own source..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no desire to take away civil liberties from citizens, and immigration law does no such thing. An illegal can be charged and given a hearing, and in many instances they are, yet it is not a requirement in order to remove an illegal from the US, the crime is still recognized and the result is the same without due process.
> 
> There is also Administrative Removal which doesn't require due process. So now there are 2 types of removals that doesn't require due process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Administrative removal for aggravated felons: This is a process where those convicted of an aggravated felony may be removed immediately after finishing their prison term without going through removal proceedings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now explain how immigration law effects a citizens civil liberties. SMFH
Click to expand...


Even when I quote your OWN SOURCE, clearly stating that due process can only be circumvented if the suspect agrees not to contest it, you STILL double down on your misinformation! Nobody has the unilateral right to deny a suspect in this country a right to a hearing or a trial. For crying out loud, Liquid, turn off your AM radio...


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Vandalshandle said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait so Obama and bush jr killed American citizens with out due process (drones and we'll documented) and you don't think they kicked out illegals without a trial (,also well documented)
> Come on pal , those are facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, you can link where illegals have been kicked out of the country without a trial. Now, I know that you don't know anything about the issue, so I will correct your first mistake, before you even make it. If the Border Patrol catches someone in the process of crossing the border, or soon thereafter, the person is sometimes given a choice as to whether or not he wants to be arrested, and go to trial, or to volunteer to be taken back to the border. This is not being "kicked out". The person must volunteer to cross the border. Get out your 8th grade Civics book, and read up on the fact that in America, nobody is guilty until proven guilty. While you are at it, read this:
> 
> Detainees Sentenced in Seconds in ‘Streamline’ Justice on Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you look into Expedited Removal. Expedited removal - Wikipedia
> 
> Maybe it is you that doesn't know as much as you think you do wanna-be cop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough. From your source:
> 
> "*Status claimants[edit]*
> Anybody who states under oath to a border agent that he or she is a citizen, lawful permanent resident, or asylee cannot be subject to expedited removal and gets an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge. Lying about one's status in these circumstances may make one inadmissible and could even lead to a lifetime bar to U.S. admission.[1]
> 
> *Voluntary return[edit]*
> The officer at a designated port of entry may discretionarily give people being turned back the option of "voluntary return" as an alternative to expedited removal. A voluntary return also goes on the person's immigration record, but has fewer serious legal consequences for attempted future entry than an order of removal.[1]
> 
> 
> Of course,  I already explained this in post 109, but it does not dovetail with with your desire to take away civil liberties from US citizens, so you do not accept it, even from your own source..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no desire to take away civil liberties from citizens, and immigration law does no such thing. An illegal can be charged and given a hearing, and in many instances they are, yet it is not a requirement in order to remove an illegal from the US, the crime is still recognized and the result is the same without due process.
> 
> There is also Administrative Removal which doesn't require due process. So now there are 2 types of removals that doesn't require due process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Administrative removal for aggravated felons: This is a process where those convicted of an aggravated felony may be removed immediately after finishing their prison term without going through removal proceedings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now explain how immigration law effects a citizens civil liberties. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even when I quote your OWN SOURCE, clearly stating that due process can only be circumvented if the suspect agrees not to contest it, you STILL double down on your misinformation! Nobody has the unilateral right to deny a suspect in this country a right to a hearing or a trial. For crying out loud, Liquid, turn off your AM radio...
Click to expand...

SMFH
I'm guessing you have a hard time with reading the English language. A Status Claimant must claim asylum, US Citizenship, or LPR status in order to get a hearing with an asylum officer (not even an IJ), without claiming one of those 3 status the illegal is SOL and he/she can be expediently removed without due process, and if the asylum officer denies asylum, it's by-by illegal, again no IJ and no due process.

Voluntary Returns are those caught at a port of entry, they are given the option of returning themselves which has less of a consequence on future entry attempts.

Now, you have yet to prove what bear claimed is incorrect, that there are actually ways to remove illegals without due process, Expedited Removal and Administrative Removal. All you have to do is accept the fact that what you claimed was based on your ignorance

Now, when are you going to show what citizens civil liberties are lost via immigration law? :YAWN:


----------



## KissMy

Trump slowed deportations & had 42,000 undocumented workers incarcerated. They have filled jails with these undocumented workers so there is no room to incarcerate real criminals. The expensive full jails are causing police to slow down their arrest & incarceration of real criminals. So now we spend $Billions more & have rising crime.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

KissMy said:


> Trump slowed deportations & had 42,000 undocumented workers incarcerated. They have filled jails with these undocumented workers so there is no room to incarcerate real criminals. The expensive full jails are causing police to slow down their arrest & incarceration of real criminals. So now we spend $Billions more & have rising crime.


Are you really trying to claim Trump incarcerated 42000 illegals? Are you sure it wasn't operation streamline that did that (a program started under Bush and increased under Obama)? Because jails are full, police are no longer doing their jobs and thus crime is rising? Do you not comprehend that Federal prison is different then state prison? Illegals go to federal prison, thus there is no correlation with police slowing down apprehending & incarcerating real criminals. SMFH LMFAO


----------



## Humorme

KissMy said:


> Trump slowed deportations & had 42,000 undocumented workers incarcerated. They have filled jails with these undocumented workers so there is no room to incarcerate real criminals. The expensive full jails are causing police to slow down their arrest & incarceration of real criminals. So now we spend $Billions more & have rising crime.



At the expense of professional trolls, you have brought up a point that needs to be examined closely.

America has more people in jails and prisons than any nation on this planet.  That *IS* the bottom line.  Those who literally* hate *foreigners like to hide behind that phony pretext of them being _"illegal aliens_."  Can you imagine how little actual crime we would have if those same people got their boxers in a bunch to that same degree over drug pushers, political jihadists, robbers, and burglars?  

Those who have a bug up their rump over undocumented foreigners cannot afford to have an honest and productive discussion.  They might get a better solution than this multi-*BILLION DOLLAR* war just to knock someone out of a job that the build the wall guys may - or may not get.

If those who complain so loudly about the problem wanted the jobs, they would shut off their computers, get off their lazy butts, go out and *apply* for the jobs.  They don't.  They are here arguing the point... and if they're here, you know damn well they are not applying for the jobs.

Tossing people into jails and prisons for taking jobs willingly offered in order to feed their family will not ever reduce the problem you have.


----------



## Checkerboard Strangler

JoeMoma said:


> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!



If this country still had an Ellis Island style system and didn't politicize the Hell out of all immigration, and didn't turn it into a nightmare of exploding fees, delays, penalties and gakked up paperwork, I suspect a lot of the problems would be remedied.

The Statue of Liberty says: 

"Give me your tired, your poor. 
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, 
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. 
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: 
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

It doesn't say:
"Alright which one of you has the best lawyers and the most bribe money to get in?"

Immigration should be able to do background checks, they should require entrants to submit a statement that qualifies them for residency, they should require the entrant pass basic health standards, I'll even go so far as to suggest they should require basic proficiency in English, even though I am sure that irritates my ultra liberal friends to death.
On that issue, I am more PRACTICAL than liberal, you need English basics to get by in the USA.
You don't have to be fluent but just the bare basics makes a world of difference.

We used to HAVE a workable immigration system in this country.
Know when it started to turn hypocritical and became a pathetic joke?

Here's when: When they started sending BUSES down to Mexico to RECRUIT BRACEROS to work the fields and then suddenly turned around and started screaming about how we needed an "Operation Wetback" to rid ourselves of all the filthy "Messikins", the very ones they had recruited just a few years earlier.

You don't think Mexicans have a memory of the history of our immigration over the years?
Kinda tough to expect them to respect hypocrisy at that level, especially when it destroys families.
And now that hypocrisy is CAPITALIZED with a giant private prison system that runs "detention centers" for a profit.

You get rid of THAT, put back a rational and reasonable system like Ellis Island, and judge the entrants on things like health, clean record, good grades, basic English and a stated desire to be productive, and I wager you will see better immigrants who can't wait to become proud Americans.

You keep up the big corporate money game and the hypocritical nonsense with the "guest workers" coming in one door while ICE looks the other way and then they turn around and bust the "wetbacks" the next day for the bounty, and I guarantee you NO ONE WILL RESPECT our borders or our stated policies...no one from ANY country.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Liquid Reigns said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, you can link where illegals have been kicked out of the country without a trial. Now, I know that you don't know anything about the issue, so I will correct your first mistake, before you even make it. If the Border Patrol catches someone in the process of crossing the border, or soon thereafter, the person is sometimes given a choice as to whether or not he wants to be arrested, and go to trial, or to volunteer to be taken back to the border. This is not being "kicked out". The person must volunteer to cross the border. Get out your 8th grade Civics book, and read up on the fact that in America, nobody is guilty until proven guilty. While you are at it, read this:
> 
> Detainees Sentenced in Seconds in ‘Streamline’ Justice on Border
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you look into Expedited Removal. Expedited removal - Wikipedia
> 
> Maybe it is you that doesn't know as much as you think you do wanna-be cop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough. From your source:
> 
> "*Status claimants[edit]*
> Anybody who states under oath to a border agent that he or she is a citizen, lawful permanent resident, or asylee cannot be subject to expedited removal and gets an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge. Lying about one's status in these circumstances may make one inadmissible and could even lead to a lifetime bar to U.S. admission.[1]
> 
> *Voluntary return[edit]*
> The officer at a designated port of entry may discretionarily give people being turned back the option of "voluntary return" as an alternative to expedited removal. A voluntary return also goes on the person's immigration record, but has fewer serious legal consequences for attempted future entry than an order of removal.[1]
> 
> 
> Of course,  I already explained this in post 109, but it does not dovetail with with your desire to take away civil liberties from US citizens, so you do not accept it, even from your own source..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no desire to take away civil liberties from citizens, and immigration law does no such thing. An illegal can be charged and given a hearing, and in many instances they are, yet it is not a requirement in order to remove an illegal from the US, the crime is still recognized and the result is the same without due process.
> 
> There is also Administrative Removal which doesn't require due process. So now there are 2 types of removals that doesn't require due process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Administrative removal for aggravated felons: This is a process where those convicted of an aggravated felony may be removed immediately after finishing their prison term without going through removal proceedings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now explain how immigration law effects a citizens civil liberties. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even when I quote your OWN SOURCE, clearly stating that due process can only be circumvented if the suspect agrees not to contest it, you STILL double down on your misinformation! Nobody has the unilateral right to deny a suspect in this country a right to a hearing or a trial. For crying out loud, Liquid, turn off your AM radio...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SMFH
> I'm guessing you have a hard time with reading the English language. A Status Claimant must claim asylum, US Citizenship, or LPR status in order to get a hearing with an asylum officer (not even an IJ), without claiming one of those 3 status the illegal is SOL and he/she can be expediently removed without due process, and if the asylum officer denies asylum, it's by-by illegal, again no IJ and no due process.
> 
> Voluntary Returns are those caught at a port of entry, they are given the option of returning themselves which has less of a consequence on future entry attempts.
> 
> Now, you have yet to prove what bear claimed is incorrect, that there are actually ways to remove illegals without due process, Expedited Removal and Administrative Removal. All you have to do is accept the fact that what you claimed was based on your ignorance
> 
> Now, when are you going to show what citizens civil liberties are lost via immigration law? :YAWN:
Click to expand...


"*Status claimants[edit]*
Anybody who states under oath to a border agent that he or she is a citizen, lawful permanent resident, or asylee cannot be subject to expedited removal and gets an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge. Lying about one's status in these circumstances may make one inadmissible and could even lead to a lifetime bar to U.S. admission.[1]

*Voluntary return[edit]*
The officer at a designated port of entry may discretionarily give people being turned back the option of "voluntary return" as an alternative to expedited removal. A voluntary return also goes on the person's immigration record, but has fewer serious legal consequences for attempted future entry than an order of removal.[1]


----------



## Slyhunter

Humorme said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've neverbeen arrested much less convicted of a damn thing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of retarded  thinking is that?
> 
> 
> They cross our borders illegally they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> They over stay their visas they are *criminals*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NONE.  If they have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc. neither do you.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For me it has nothing to do with Race. Mexican, Chinese, German, I don't fucking care. For me it is my ability to provide for my family. I do what is best for myself and my family. I want laws passed that help me and my family thrive. And what doesn't help me and my family thrive is people coming here and doing work I used too do for less money than I did it. It is really that simple. Americans first. Not whites first, I'll take Mexicans and blacks and purples already on team America as a part of my team and of whom I'm fighting/arguing for. But no foreigners. Not until every American who wants a job has a job with a living wage!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just so we're clear, what you're advocating is National Socialism lite.  It is not the duty or obligation of any employer to provide you with a job.
> 
> My objective is to get the government out of my life so that I can provide for me and my family.
Click to expand...

Since Automation is inevitable, since replacement of all non-high tech jobs is going to happen. Then yes I'm advocating those who profit from such a change pay for those who lose their ability to earn a living due to such a change. And if they want to retrain these people and get them off of subsistence, then more power to em.

A place must be found for the poor and displaced worker, or they need to be provided for.


----------



## KissMy

Liquid Reigns said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump slowed deportations & had 42,000 undocumented workers incarcerated. They have filled jails with these undocumented workers so there is no room to incarcerate real criminals. The expensive full jails are causing police to slow down their arrest & incarceration of real criminals. So now we spend $Billions more & have rising crime.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really trying to claim Trump incarcerated 42000 illegals? Are you sure it wasn't operation streamline that did that (a program started under Bush and increased under Obama)? Because jails are full, police are no longer doing their jobs and thus crime is rising? Do you not comprehend that Federal prison is different then state prison? Illegals go to federal prison, thus there is no correlation with police slowing down apprehending & incarcerating real criminals. SMFH LMFAO
Click to expand...


The Feds ICE contracts for private prison space / beds the same as state & locals do. Available prison beds are gone, so more criminals go free. St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson solution _"We can't arrest our way out of this situation. We can't incarcerate our way out of this situation. We are increasing funding for recreation and job programs."_ She told citizens to bring in guns, in exchange, receive grocery store gift certificates

Trump busted up working families causing harm to their children s development, increasing likely-hood of them turning into criminals. Then he threw honest hard working tax paying people in prison where they learn to become professional criminals. Spending $Billions$ more while we allow real criminals to remain free to harm good citizens.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me it has nothing to do with Race. Mexican, Chinese, German, I don't fucking care. For me it is my ability to provide for my family. I do what is best for myself and my family. I want laws passed that help me and my family thrive. And what doesn't help me and my family thrive is people coming here and doing work I used too do for less money than I did it. It is really that simple. Americans first. Not whites first, I'll take Mexicans and blacks and purples already on team America as a part of my team and of whom I'm fighting/arguing for. But no foreigners. Not until every American who wants a job has a job with a living wage!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just so we're clear, what you're advocating is National Socialism lite.  It is not the duty or obligation of any employer to provide you with a job.
> 
> My objective is to get the government out of my life so that I can provide for me and my family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even in right wing, Right to Work States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An employer should have private property Rights which includes the Right to hire whomever they think will best do the job.  In other words, I support every Americans Right to discriminate.
> 
> The privileges of citizenship, however, should not extend to non-citizens. * IF *the government were to create a way for those who are undocumented to work "_legally_" as the extremists want to call it, if they are paying into the system via taxes, they should be able to draw against it just like anybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with the legal concept of employment at will.
> 
> It is the right wing that has a problem with equal protection of the law.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is a more cost effective and market friendly social safety net.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the 1970s through the early 2000s I considered myself right of center as a student of American history and constitutional government.  Today, the people you call the right wing are 180 degrees *opposite* of the old kind of people you would find in the John Birch Society, Young Republicans Club, National Taxpayers Union, and the Conservative Caucus.
> 
> Begrudgingly, I have to admit that you're right on this.  That's really hard to admit to.  Those on the right have *NO* conception of innocent until proven guilty.   They've found a convenient *pretext* to call people "_illegal aliens_" without ever having to extend Due Process because that it is more palatable than calling them mud people, sand (expletive deleted), etc. wherein their true motives become a bit clearer.
> 
> Bernie Sanders tells people up front that he is a socialist.  Those who want a perpetual war over the immigration issue - one to the point that they cannot discuss the issue rationally want National Socialism and from time to time, the facts emerge in their angry and spiteful posts.
Click to expand...

The right wing also refuses to pay for their socialism on a national basis, with Appropriate tax rates.


----------



## Humorme

Checkerboard Strangler said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this country still had an Ellis Island style system and didn't politicize the Hell out of all immigration, and didn't turn it into a nightmare of exploding fees, delays, penalties and gakked up paperwork, I suspect a lot of the problems would be remedied.
> 
> The Statue of Liberty says:
> 
> "Give me your tired, your poor.
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
> 
> It doesn't say:
> "Alright which one of you has the best lawyers and the most bribe money to get in?"
> 
> Immigration should be able to do background checks, they should require entrants to submit a statement that qualifies them for residency, they should require the entrant pass basic health standards, I'll even go so far as to suggest they should require basic proficiency in English, even though I am sure that irritates my ultra liberal friends to death.
> On that issue, I am more PRACTICAL than liberal, you need English basics to get by in the USA.
> You don't have to be fluent but just the bare basics makes a world of difference.
> 
> We used to HAVE a workable immigration system in this country.
> Know when it started to turn hypocritical and became a pathetic joke?
> 
> Here's when: When they started sending BUSES down to Mexico to RECRUIT BRACEROS to work the fields and then suddenly turned around and started screaming about how we needed an "Operation Wetback" to rid ourselves of all the filthy "Messikins", the very ones they had recruited just a few years earlier.
> 
> You don't think Mexicans have a memory of the history of our immigration over the years?
> Kinda tough to expect them to respect hypocrisy at that level, especially when it destroys families.
> And now that hypocrisy is CAPITALIZED with a giant private prison system that runs "detention centers" for a profit.
> 
> You get rid of THAT, put back a rational and reasonable system like Ellis Island, and judge the entrants on things like health, clean record, good grades, basic English and a stated desire to be productive, and I wager you will see better immigrants who can't wait to become proud Americans.
> 
> You keep up the big corporate money game and the hypocritical nonsense with the "guest workers" coming in one door while ICE looks the other way and then they turn around and bust the "wetbacks" the next day for the bounty, and I guarantee you NO ONE WILL RESPECT our borders or our stated policies...no one from ANY country.
Click to expand...



In order to solve this, the right needs to get over the idea that everyone who comes here should become a citizen.

They mistake regulation for citizenship.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> Checkerboard Strangler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this country still had an Ellis Island style system and didn't politicize the Hell out of all immigration, and didn't turn it into a nightmare of exploding fees, delays, penalties and gakked up paperwork, I suspect a lot of the problems would be remedied.
> 
> The Statue of Liberty says:
> 
> "Give me your tired, your poor.
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
> 
> It doesn't say:
> "Alright which one of you has the best lawyers and the most bribe money to get in?"
> 
> Immigration should be able to do background checks, they should require entrants to submit a statement that qualifies them for residency, they should require the entrant pass basic health standards, I'll even go so far as to suggest they should require basic proficiency in English, even though I am sure that irritates my ultra liberal friends to death.
> On that issue, I am more PRACTICAL than liberal, you need English basics to get by in the USA.
> You don't have to be fluent but just the bare basics makes a world of difference.
> 
> We used to HAVE a workable immigration system in this country.
> Know when it started to turn hypocritical and became a pathetic joke?
> 
> Here's when: When they started sending BUSES down to Mexico to RECRUIT BRACEROS to work the fields and then suddenly turned around and started screaming about how we needed an "Operation Wetback" to rid ourselves of all the filthy "Messikins", the very ones they had recruited just a few years earlier.
> 
> You don't think Mexicans have a memory of the history of our immigration over the years?
> Kinda tough to expect them to respect hypocrisy at that level, especially when it destroys families.
> And now that hypocrisy is CAPITALIZED with a giant private prison system that runs "detention centers" for a profit.
> 
> You get rid of THAT, put back a rational and reasonable system like Ellis Island, and judge the entrants on things like health, clean record, good grades, basic English and a stated desire to be productive, and I wager you will see better immigrants who can't wait to become proud Americans.
> 
> You keep up the big corporate money game and the hypocritical nonsense with the "guest workers" coming in one door while ICE looks the other way and then they turn around and bust the "wetbacks" the next day for the bounty, and I guarantee you NO ONE WILL RESPECT our borders or our stated policies...no one from ANY country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In order to solve this, the right needs to get over the idea that everyone who comes here should become a citizen.
> 
> They mistake regulation for citizenship.
Click to expand...

We have a Commerce Clause not any form of Prohibition Clause.


----------



## Humorme

Slyhunter said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, they absolutely are *NOT* criminals.  What's retarded in this country are stupid people who ignore the Constitution of the United States and some fundamental principles.  I keep quoting Tom Paine, one of our country's founders.  When it comes to anti-immigrants, they can't understand it.  Let me repeat it, then I'll explain it to you:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)
> 
> The *FIRST* misapplication of the law is that insist on calling undocumented foreigners "_illegal aliens_" and  assure us they are criminals and so forth.  They take the entire concept of _innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence _and toss it out the window.
> 
> When that precedent is used on them, they scratch their heads and if it happens to be them, they are really pissed with the LEO community.  People are raging mad in the United States at the LEOs.  How can they beat people in the streets and even shoot them without _due process_?
> 
> The *real reason* that stuff happens is that the anti-immigrant lobby and the Tea Party types envision a total *POLICE STATE* for America.  They love the idea of cops watching them 24 / 7 / 365.  They like the idea of the pee test, blood test, driver's license, Socialist Security Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," birth certificate, criminal background check, credit check, drones in the sky and zero constitutional protections against warrant-less search and seizures.
> 
> Under our constitutional / legal / dejure  U.S. Constitution everybody is entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_.  See the 14th Amendment.  IF a foreigner is a criminal absent due process then *EVERY AMERICAN IS GUILTY OF SOME KIND OF CRIME*.  A cop once told me that if you don't have a record, it's only because you haven't been caught yet.
> 
> I can thank people like you for this atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and what is little more than a National Socialist approach to the issues at hand...  all which was a great deflection to keep from answering MY question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of goofy post is this? So in your mind anyone everyone born in the world is an American and protected by the Constitution?
> 
> No if your not born in America and sneak in here or over stay your visa you are a criminal plane and simple
> 
> What's so complicated about it in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read the posts before being a dumb ass trying to pick a freaking board fight.  Maybe you can join the retard that is much like you making irrelevant and easily disprovable points.
> 
> This country was founded on the principle that every person is born with *unalienable* Rights.  What, in *YOUR* mind, is so hard to understand about *that*?  Do you believe in Liberty?  It's a simple yes or no.
> 
> We've tried what you advocate.  It became very unpopular.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Chinese laborers:
> 
> "_Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on the transcontinental railroad, such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in the mining industry, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. *While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this "yellow peril".* Despite the provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against the immigration of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor". Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress eventually passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. *The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.*[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States (that is, men who had left China without their wives and children); anti-miscegenation laws in many states prohibited Chinese men from marrying white women_."
> 
> History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> The one thing people like you *should not do* is to try to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  You would like to see a wall go up, people deported, and then not allowed to return... You want to hide behind this thinly veiled technicality that they might be _"illegals_" though your kind would take a giant dump on the Constitution as well as the presumption of innocence rather than to sort it all out.
> 
> You hide behind what you really want because you lack the courage, intestinal fortitude and the ethical inclinations to be up front as to why you don't want foreigners here.  And the truth is a better argument than this chicken squeeze of pretending to have your panties in a bunch over people trying to exercise a basic Liberty in an effort to feed their family in spite of some idiotic and ridiculous - *AND UNENFORCEABLE laws that, IF you did get your way would cost all of us OUR RIGHTS*.  You can make all the arguments you want, but you cannot criminalize Liberty.  Either mankind has *unalienable* Rights or they do not.
> 
> If the foreigner has no Liberty, neither do you.  If the foreigner has no Rights to Life and Liberty, then you have NONE.  If they have NO Right to the Freedom of the Press, NO Freedom of Speech, NO Freedom of Religion, NO Right to Due Process, etc., etc. neither do you.  Man either gets his Rights from God or government.  You sure as Hell don't get them from both.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that America was founded as a white country for the benefit of whites, you might have a more convincing argument.  But, what you're expecting is for me to jump on your bandwagon and take a giant shit on my *unalienable* Rights in the process.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For me it has nothing to do with Race. Mexican, Chinese, German, I don't fucking care. For me it is my ability to provide for my family. I do what is best for myself and my family. I want laws passed that help me and my family thrive. And what doesn't help me and my family thrive is people coming here and doing work I used too do for less money than I did it. It is really that simple. Americans first. Not whites first, I'll take Mexicans and blacks and purples already on team America as a part of my team and of whom I'm fighting/arguing for. But no foreigners. Not until every American who wants a job has a job with a living wage!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just so we're clear, what you're advocating is National Socialism lite.  It is not the duty or obligation of any employer to provide you with a job.
> 
> My objective is to get the government out of my life so that I can provide for me and my family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since Automation is inevitable, since replacement of all non-high tech jobs is going to happen. Then yes I'm advocating those who profit from such a change pay for those who lose their ability to earn a living due to such a change. And if they want to retrain these people and get them off of subsistence, then more power to em.
> 
> A place must be found for the poor and displaced worker, or they need to be provided for.
Click to expand...


Unless and until the people who feel like you get active at the local level, you are urinating in the wind.  Take a look at what happened a generation ago:

Walmart would come to town and buy up property for one of their stores.  If you refused to sell your home, Walmart got their lawyers to con the county commission into condemning your property and they would buy it on their terms via eminent domain statutes.

Walmart comes to town; they build their big store and run the little stores out of business.  Being a corporate giant, they are in charge of setting wages.  The county gets more money in taxes which motivates them to seek out bigger companies to come in and eliminate the mom and pop businesses.

Now, we're up to this generation.  Automation, robotics, and the disappearance of brick and mortar stores means less and less jobs are out there.  We can't keep making this argument that foreigners are "_stealing jobs_."   Many good jobs (like running stores) are falling by the wayside due to the fact that people are not active at the local level.  You need to be engaged at your *county level*.  When people come into your community, you should be asking how many jobs will be created and what the pay scale will be.  Tearing up a community to create a few minimum wage jobs may help the county government raise more tax money (jokingly called revenue), but it don't do a damn thing for people that work for a living.

I have put many proposals on the table that would get America back to work.  But, the sad, hard core reality is that a lot of people *don't want* to work.  They are content to spend their every waking moment trying to prove to you how evil people are to come here and take minimum wage jobs in order to feed their family while Americans are not applying for those positions.  Like I keep saying, if they were not full time *unpaid *lobbyists for Donald Trump, they'd probably have a job.  Those people don't understand *supply and demand*.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Checkerboard Strangler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this country still had an Ellis Island style system and didn't politicize the Hell out of all immigration, and didn't turn it into a nightmare of exploding fees, delays, penalties and gakked up paperwork, I suspect a lot of the problems would be remedied.
> 
> The Statue of Liberty says:
> 
> "Give me your tired, your poor.
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
> 
> It doesn't say:
> "Alright which one of you has the best lawyers and the most bribe money to get in?"
> 
> Immigration should be able to do background checks, they should require entrants to submit a statement that qualifies them for residency, they should require the entrant pass basic health standards, I'll even go so far as to suggest they should require basic proficiency in English, even though I am sure that irritates my ultra liberal friends to death.
> On that issue, I am more PRACTICAL than liberal, you need English basics to get by in the USA.
> You don't have to be fluent but just the bare basics makes a world of difference.
> 
> We used to HAVE a workable immigration system in this country.
> Know when it started to turn hypocritical and became a pathetic joke?
> 
> Here's when: When they started sending BUSES down to Mexico to RECRUIT BRACEROS to work the fields and then suddenly turned around and started screaming about how we needed an "Operation Wetback" to rid ourselves of all the filthy "Messikins", the very ones they had recruited just a few years earlier.
> 
> You don't think Mexicans have a memory of the history of our immigration over the years?
> Kinda tough to expect them to respect hypocrisy at that level, especially when it destroys families.
> And now that hypocrisy is CAPITALIZED with a giant private prison system that runs "detention centers" for a profit.
> 
> You get rid of THAT, put back a rational and reasonable system like Ellis Island, and judge the entrants on things like health, clean record, good grades, basic English and a stated desire to be productive, and I wager you will see better immigrants who can't wait to become proud Americans.
> 
> You keep up the big corporate money game and the hypocritical nonsense with the "guest workers" coming in one door while ICE looks the other way and then they turn around and bust the "wetbacks" the next day for the bounty, and I guarantee you NO ONE WILL RESPECT our borders or our stated policies...no one from ANY country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In order to solve this, the right needs to get over the idea that everyone who comes here should become a citizen.
> 
> They mistake regulation for citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Commerce Clause not any form of Prohibition Clause.
Click to expand...


The Commerce Clause don't have a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about.  And, yes, in the context that I spoke of, we DO have a prohibition clause.  Allow me to quote it for you:

"_No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed_," Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3.

Please don't start your silly ass trolling on this thread.  You're wrong.  In the context that I used the term, it is correct.


----------



## Wry Catcher

JoeMoma said:


> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!



It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to enforce Immigration laws, and the duty of The Congress to fund and provide detention facilities to hold and provide the required due process for each and everyone one detained by ICE.

As it stands today, and has for decades, the Federal Government has not reimbursed local and state agencies for the arrest, detention, court time and medical needs of undocumented persons arrested for any crime.

That didn't change when INS became ICE under Bush or under Obama or under Trump.  Piss and moan all you want, but it is Ryan's duty to put such funding in the budget, instead, that jerks (McConnell and Trump&Co.) cut taxes and continue the burden on local and state government.


----------



## Humorme

KissMy said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump slowed deportations & had 42,000 undocumented workers incarcerated. They have filled jails with these undocumented workers so there is no room to incarcerate real criminals. The expensive full jails are causing police to slow down their arrest & incarceration of real criminals. So now we spend $Billions more & have rising crime.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really trying to claim Trump incarcerated 42000 illegals? Are you sure it wasn't operation streamline that did that (a program started under Bush and increased under Obama)? Because jails are full, police are no longer doing their jobs and thus crime is rising? Do you not comprehend that Federal prison is different then state prison? Illegals go to federal prison, thus there is no correlation with police slowing down apprehending & incarcerating real criminals. SMFH LMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Feds ICE contracts for private prison space / beds the same as state & locals do. Available prison beds are gone, so more criminals go free. St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson solution _"We can't arrest our way out of this situation. We can't incarcerate our way out of this situation. We are increasing funding for recreation and job programs."_ She told citizens to bring in guns, in exchange, receive grocery store gift certificates
> 
> Trump busted up working families causing harm to their children s development, increasing likely-hood of them turning into criminals. Then he threw honest hard working tax paying people in prison where they learn to become professional criminals. Spending $Billions$ more while we allow real criminals to remain free to harm good citizens.
Click to expand...


What you described is not limited to Trump.  It has taken a LOT of politicians from both parties over a number of years in order to create the scenario that you describe.

Foreigners are merely scapegoats and a diversion to keep from addressing the root problems in this country.  As a result, the laws being passed to infringe upon *their* Liberties will be used against all of us.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Checkerboard Strangler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this country still had an Ellis Island style system and didn't politicize the Hell out of all immigration, and didn't turn it into a nightmare of exploding fees, delays, penalties and gakked up paperwork, I suspect a lot of the problems would be remedied.
> 
> The Statue of Liberty says:
> 
> "Give me your tired, your poor.
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
> 
> It doesn't say:
> "Alright which one of you has the best lawyers and the most bribe money to get in?"
> 
> Immigration should be able to do background checks, they should require entrants to submit a statement that qualifies them for residency, they should require the entrant pass basic health standards, I'll even go so far as to suggest they should require basic proficiency in English, even though I am sure that irritates my ultra liberal friends to death.
> On that issue, I am more PRACTICAL than liberal, you need English basics to get by in the USA.
> You don't have to be fluent but just the bare basics makes a world of difference.
> 
> We used to HAVE a workable immigration system in this country.
> Know when it started to turn hypocritical and became a pathetic joke?
> 
> Here's when: When they started sending BUSES down to Mexico to RECRUIT BRACEROS to work the fields and then suddenly turned around and started screaming about how we needed an "Operation Wetback" to rid ourselves of all the filthy "Messikins", the very ones they had recruited just a few years earlier.
> 
> You don't think Mexicans have a memory of the history of our immigration over the years?
> Kinda tough to expect them to respect hypocrisy at that level, especially when it destroys families.
> And now that hypocrisy is CAPITALIZED with a giant private prison system that runs "detention centers" for a profit.
> 
> You get rid of THAT, put back a rational and reasonable system like Ellis Island, and judge the entrants on things like health, clean record, good grades, basic English and a stated desire to be productive, and I wager you will see better immigrants who can't wait to become proud Americans.
> 
> You keep up the big corporate money game and the hypocritical nonsense with the "guest workers" coming in one door while ICE looks the other way and then they turn around and bust the "wetbacks" the next day for the bounty, and I guarantee you NO ONE WILL RESPECT our borders or our stated policies...no one from ANY country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In order to solve this, the right needs to get over the idea that everyone who comes here should become a citizen.
> 
> They mistake regulation for citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Commerce Clause not any form of Prohibition Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Commerce Clause don't have a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about.  And, yes, in the context that I spoke of, we DO have a prohibition clause.  Allow me to quote it for you:
> 
> "_No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed_," Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3.
> 
> Please don't start your silly ass trolling on this thread.  You're wrong.  In the context that I used the term, it is correct.
Click to expand...

I thought we were discussing Congress' authority over immigration issues.


----------



## Humorme

Wry Catcher said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to enforce Immigration laws, and the duty of The Congress to fund and provide detention facilities to hold and provide the required due process for each and everyone one detained by ICE.
> 
> As it stands today, and has for decades, the Federal Government has not reimbursed local and state agencies for the arrest, detention, court time and medical needs of undocumented persons arrested for any crime.
> 
> That didn't change when INS became ICE under Bush or under Obama or under Trump.  Piss and moan all you want, but it is Ryan's duty to put such funding in the budget, instead, that jerks (McConnell and Trump&Co.) cut taxes and continue the burden on local and state government.
Click to expand...



IF the  federal government tried to reimburse state and local entities for arresting, housing, feeding, etc. undocumented foreigners, we would be *officially* bankrupt.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Vandalshandle said:


> "*Status claimants[edit]*
> Anybody who states under oath to a border agent that he or she is a citizen, lawful permanent resident, or asylee cannot be subject to expedited removal and gets an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge. Lying about one's status in these circumstances may make one inadmissible and could even lead to a lifetime bar to U.S. admission.[1]
> 
> *Voluntary return[edit]*
> The officer at a designated port of entry may discretionarily give people being turned back the option of "voluntary return" as an alternative to expedited removal. A voluntary return also goes on the person's immigration record, but has fewer serious legal consequences for attempted future entry than an order of removal.[1]


None of this contradicts anything I stated. None of this contradicts what bear stated. SMFH

Did you know that in 2013, 44% of all removals were done by Expedited Removal? That means no due process for more than 145,000 illegals.
A Primer on Expedited Removal


> Yet expedited removal has been increasingly applied in recent years; 44 percent of all removals from the United States were conducted through expedited removal in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, the most recent government data available. A dramatic expansion, as directed by President Trump, might result in thousands of additional deportations without due process.
> *What the Law Says*
> “Expedited removal” refers to the legal authority given to even low-level immigration officers to order the deportation of some non-U.S. citizens without any of the due-process protections granted to most other people—such as the right to an attorney and to a hearing before a judge.


yauranidiot

Now, when are you going to show what citizens civil liberties are lost via immigration law? :YAWN:


----------



## Liquid Reigns

KissMy said:


> The Feds ICE contracts for private prison space / beds the same as state & locals do.


Thats right both feds and states use private prisons. Now for the kicker, they are separated prisons for federal and state as they are not the same locations.



KissMy said:


> Available prison beds are gone, so more criminals go free. St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson solution _"We can't arrest our way out of this situation. We can't incarcerate our way out of this situation. We are increasing funding for recreation and job programs."_ She told citizens to bring in guns, in exchange, receive grocery store gift certificates


You do realize this is at the local level and has absolutely nothing to do with illegal immigrants, don't you? SMFH



KissMy said:


> Trump busted up working families causing harm to their children s development, increasing likely-hood of them turning into criminals. Then he threw honest hard working tax paying people in prison where they learn to become professional criminals. Spending $Billions$ more while we allow real criminals to remain free to harm good citizens.


YAWN cry your river elsewhere. Obama did it too. whah. Guess what! if you don't like the laws go advocate for their change, but don't get mad when you find out many of those laws were put in place by your Democrat Party.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Checkerboard Strangler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this country still had an Ellis Island style system and didn't politicize the Hell out of all immigration, and didn't turn it into a nightmare of exploding fees, delays, penalties and gakked up paperwork, I suspect a lot of the problems would be remedied.
> 
> The Statue of Liberty says:
> 
> "Give me your tired, your poor.
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
> 
> It doesn't say:
> "Alright which one of you has the best lawyers and the most bribe money to get in?"
> 
> Immigration should be able to do background checks, they should require entrants to submit a statement that qualifies them for residency, they should require the entrant pass basic health standards, I'll even go so far as to suggest they should require basic proficiency in English, even though I am sure that irritates my ultra liberal friends to death.
> On that issue, I am more PRACTICAL than liberal, you need English basics to get by in the USA.
> You don't have to be fluent but just the bare basics makes a world of difference.
> 
> We used to HAVE a workable immigration system in this country.
> Know when it started to turn hypocritical and became a pathetic joke?
> 
> Here's when: When they started sending BUSES down to Mexico to RECRUIT BRACEROS to work the fields and then suddenly turned around and started screaming about how we needed an "Operation Wetback" to rid ourselves of all the filthy "Messikins", the very ones they had recruited just a few years earlier.
> 
> You don't think Mexicans have a memory of the history of our immigration over the years?
> Kinda tough to expect them to respect hypocrisy at that level, especially when it destroys families.
> And now that hypocrisy is CAPITALIZED with a giant private prison system that runs "detention centers" for a profit.
> 
> You get rid of THAT, put back a rational and reasonable system like Ellis Island, and judge the entrants on things like health, clean record, good grades, basic English and a stated desire to be productive, and I wager you will see better immigrants who can't wait to become proud Americans.
> 
> You keep up the big corporate money game and the hypocritical nonsense with the "guest workers" coming in one door while ICE looks the other way and then they turn around and bust the "wetbacks" the next day for the bounty, and I guarantee you NO ONE WILL RESPECT our borders or our stated policies...no one from ANY country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In order to solve this, the right needs to get over the idea that everyone who comes here should become a citizen.
> 
> They mistake regulation for citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Commerce Clause not any form of Prohibition Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Commerce Clause don't have a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about.  And, yes, in the context that I spoke of, we DO have a prohibition clause.  Allow me to quote it for you:
> 
> "_No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed_," Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3.
> 
> Please don't start your silly ass trolling on this thread.  You're wrong.  In the context that I used the term, it is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought we were discussing Congress' authority over immigration issues.
Click to expand...


When I used the term, the only recollection I have is in terms of the right thinking that once they have deported all the undocumented foreigners, their problems end.  They don't.

The children of undocumented foreigners born in the United States are citizens of the United States and we can* NEVER* "uncitizen" them  the way the right fantasizes about it.

Having said that, I want you to think about something:

When it comes to *immigration*, the Constitution provides:

"_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_"  Article 1 Section 8

That's it.  The Constitution *does not* give Congress any other authority.

Let's examine the facts:

The first federal immigration statute was in 1790.  Here is the law laid out for you:

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen_..."  

It was amended a few times, but it still limited citizenship to whites.

Despite that, people came from every corner of the globe to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  They could not become citizens, but they could work and earn money.

IF the law was supposed to give Congress any more authority, someone forgot to tell the founding fathers.  Here is why:

During the lives of *ALL* the founding fathers, the *states* controlled the issue of who comes and goes.  It was not until after *EVERY SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER DIED* that the law changed.  What happened?

In 1875 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to Congress over immigration.  Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to grant plenary powers to* ANYONE*?  The problem for the states is that they did not weigh in on this case.  The Supreme Court was not that satisfied with their own ruling.  According to Wikipedia:

"_The court was also critical of the* State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration*, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case_."

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

So, during the lives of the founders, the *STATES* controlled migration (foreigners coming in and out of states to work.)  How come you suppose *NOT ONE FOUNDER OF THIS COUNTRY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT PRACTICE?*


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Checkerboard Strangler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this country still had an Ellis Island style system and didn't politicize the Hell out of all immigration, and didn't turn it into a nightmare of exploding fees, delays, penalties and gakked up paperwork, I suspect a lot of the problems would be remedied.
> 
> The Statue of Liberty says:
> 
> "Give me your tired, your poor.
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
> 
> It doesn't say:
> "Alright which one of you has the best lawyers and the most bribe money to get in?"
> 
> Immigration should be able to do background checks, they should require entrants to submit a statement that qualifies them for residency, they should require the entrant pass basic health standards, I'll even go so far as to suggest they should require basic proficiency in English, even though I am sure that irritates my ultra liberal friends to death.
> On that issue, I am more PRACTICAL than liberal, you need English basics to get by in the USA.
> You don't have to be fluent but just the bare basics makes a world of difference.
> 
> We used to HAVE a workable immigration system in this country.
> Know when it started to turn hypocritical and became a pathetic joke?
> 
> Here's when: When they started sending BUSES down to Mexico to RECRUIT BRACEROS to work the fields and then suddenly turned around and started screaming about how we needed an "Operation Wetback" to rid ourselves of all the filthy "Messikins", the very ones they had recruited just a few years earlier.
> 
> You don't think Mexicans have a memory of the history of our immigration over the years?
> Kinda tough to expect them to respect hypocrisy at that level, especially when it destroys families.
> And now that hypocrisy is CAPITALIZED with a giant private prison system that runs "detention centers" for a profit.
> 
> You get rid of THAT, put back a rational and reasonable system like Ellis Island, and judge the entrants on things like health, clean record, good grades, basic English and a stated desire to be productive, and I wager you will see better immigrants who can't wait to become proud Americans.
> 
> You keep up the big corporate money game and the hypocritical nonsense with the "guest workers" coming in one door while ICE looks the other way and then they turn around and bust the "wetbacks" the next day for the bounty, and I guarantee you NO ONE WILL RESPECT our borders or our stated policies...no one from ANY country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In order to solve this, the right needs to get over the idea that everyone who comes here should become a citizen.
> 
> They mistake regulation for citizenship.
Click to expand...

Nobody on the right thinks that. Its a made up narrative in your head.


----------



## danielpalos

"_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_" Article 1 Section 8
Under Socialism or Capitalism; we have a Commerce Clause.  It should apply.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> When I used the term, the only recollection I have is in terms of the right thinking that once they have deported all the undocumented foreigners, their problems end.  They don't.
> 
> The children of undocumented foreigners born in the United States are citizens of the United States and we can* NEVER* "uncitizen" them  the way the right fantasizes about it.
> 
> Having said that, I want you to think about something:
> 
> When it comes to *immigration*, the Constitution provides:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_"  Article 1 Section 8
> 
> That's it.  The Constitution *does not* give Congress any other authority.
> 
> Let's examine the facts:
> 
> The first federal immigration statute was in 1790.  Here is the law laid out for you:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen_..."
> 
> It was amended a few times, but it still limited citizenship to whites.


No, it limited _naturalization_ to whites. SMFH



Humorme said:


> Despite that, people came from every corner of the globe to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  They could not become citizens, but they could work and earn money.


No they didn't. Asians and just about every other country outside Western Europe didn't get here until the middle to the end of the 1800's.



Humorme said:


> IF the law was supposed to give Congress any more authority, someone forgot to tell the founding fathers.  Here is why:
> 
> During the lives of *ALL* the founding fathers, the *states* controlled the issue of who comes and goes.  It was not until after *EVERY SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER DIED* that the law changed.  What happened?


The states didn't control immigration issues, the feds regulated them. In the 1800's the feds then removed any state participation.



Humorme said:


> In 1875 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to Congress over immigration.  Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to grant plenary powers to* ANYONE*?  The problem for the states is that they did not weigh in on this case.  The Supreme Court was not that satisfied with their own ruling.  According to Wikipedia:
> 
> "_The court was also critical of the* State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration*, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case_."
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia


SMFH the case simply stated the feds control foreign relations, not the state. No where in that very case does the court use the word "plenary power".



Humorme said:


> So, during the lives of the founders, the *STATES* controlled migration (foreigners coming in and out of states to work.)  How come you suppose *NOT ONE FOUNDER OF THIS COUNTRY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT PRACTICE?*


The only time the states ever controlled immigration was prior to the Articles of Confederation when they were all still colonies.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Checkerboard Strangler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this country still had an Ellis Island style system and didn't politicize the Hell out of all immigration, and didn't turn it into a nightmare of exploding fees, delays, penalties and gakked up paperwork, I suspect a lot of the problems would be remedied.
> 
> The Statue of Liberty says:
> 
> "Give me your tired, your poor.
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
> 
> It doesn't say:
> "Alright which one of you has the best lawyers and the most bribe money to get in?"
> 
> Immigration should be able to do background checks, they should require entrants to submit a statement that qualifies them for residency, they should require the entrant pass basic health standards, I'll even go so far as to suggest they should require basic proficiency in English, even though I am sure that irritates my ultra liberal friends to death.
> On that issue, I am more PRACTICAL than liberal, you need English basics to get by in the USA.
> You don't have to be fluent but just the bare basics makes a world of difference.
> 
> We used to HAVE a workable immigration system in this country.
> Know when it started to turn hypocritical and became a pathetic joke?
> 
> Here's when: When they started sending BUSES down to Mexico to RECRUIT BRACEROS to work the fields and then suddenly turned around and started screaming about how we needed an "Operation Wetback" to rid ourselves of all the filthy "Messikins", the very ones they had recruited just a few years earlier.
> 
> You don't think Mexicans have a memory of the history of our immigration over the years?
> Kinda tough to expect them to respect hypocrisy at that level, especially when it destroys families.
> And now that hypocrisy is CAPITALIZED with a giant private prison system that runs "detention centers" for a profit.
> 
> You get rid of THAT, put back a rational and reasonable system like Ellis Island, and judge the entrants on things like health, clean record, good grades, basic English and a stated desire to be productive, and I wager you will see better immigrants who can't wait to become proud Americans.
> 
> You keep up the big corporate money game and the hypocritical nonsense with the "guest workers" coming in one door while ICE looks the other way and then they turn around and bust the "wetbacks" the next day for the bounty, and I guarantee you NO ONE WILL RESPECT our borders or our stated policies...no one from ANY country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to solve this, the right needs to get over the idea that everyone who comes here should become a citizen.
> 
> They mistake regulation for citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Commerce Clause not any form of Prohibition Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Commerce Clause don't have a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about.  And, yes, in the context that I spoke of, we DO have a prohibition clause.  Allow me to quote it for you:
> 
> "_No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed_," Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3.
> 
> Please don't start your silly ass trolling on this thread.  You're wrong.  In the context that I used the term, it is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought we were discussing Congress' authority over immigration issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I used the term, the only recollection I have is in terms of the right thinking that once they have deported all the undocumented foreigners, their problems end.  They don't.
> 
> The children of undocumented foreigners born in the United States are citizens of the United States and we can* NEVER* "uncitizen" them  the way the right fantasizes about it.
> 
> Having said that, I want you to think about something:
> 
> When it comes to *immigration*, the Constitution provides:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_"  Article 1 Section 8
> 
> That's it.  The Constitution *does not* give Congress any other authority.
> 
> Let's examine the facts:
> 
> The first federal immigration statute was in 1790.  Here is the law laid out for you:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen_..."
> 
> It was amended a few times, but it still limited citizenship to whites.
> 
> Despite that, people came from every corner of the globe to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  They could not become citizens, but they could work and earn money.
> 
> IF the law was supposed to give Congress any more authority, someone forgot to tell the founding fathers.  Here is why:
> 
> During the lives of *ALL* the founding fathers, the *states* controlled the issue of who comes and goes.  It was not until after *EVERY SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER DIED* that the law changed.  What happened?
> 
> In 1875 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to Congress over immigration.  Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to grant plenary powers to* ANYONE*?  The problem for the states is that they did not weigh in on this case.  The Supreme Court was not that satisfied with their own ruling.  According to Wikipedia:
> 
> "_The court was also critical of the* State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration*, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case_."
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> So, during the lives of the founders, the *STATES* controlled migration (foreigners coming in and out of states to work.)  How come you suppose *NOT ONE FOUNDER OF THIS COUNTRY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT PRACTICE?*
Click to expand...

It is no longer a State power since 1808.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order to solve this, the right needs to get over the idea that everyone who comes here should become a citizen.
> 
> They mistake regulation for citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Commerce Clause not any form of Prohibition Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Commerce Clause don't have a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about.  And, yes, in the context that I spoke of, we DO have a prohibition clause.  Allow me to quote it for you:
> 
> "_No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed_," Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3.
> 
> Please don't start your silly ass trolling on this thread.  You're wrong.  In the context that I used the term, it is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought we were discussing Congress' authority over immigration issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I used the term, the only recollection I have is in terms of the right thinking that once they have deported all the undocumented foreigners, their problems end.  They don't.
> 
> The children of undocumented foreigners born in the United States are citizens of the United States and we can* NEVER* "uncitizen" them  the way the right fantasizes about it.
> 
> Having said that, I want you to think about something:
> 
> When it comes to *immigration*, the Constitution provides:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_"  Article 1 Section 8
> 
> That's it.  The Constitution *does not* give Congress any other authority.
> 
> Let's examine the facts:
> 
> The first federal immigration statute was in 1790.  Here is the law laid out for you:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen_..."
> 
> It was amended a few times, but it still limited citizenship to whites.
> 
> Despite that, people came from every corner of the globe to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  They could not become citizens, but they could work and earn money.
> 
> IF the law was supposed to give Congress any more authority, someone forgot to tell the founding fathers.  Here is why:
> 
> During the lives of *ALL* the founding fathers, the *states* controlled the issue of who comes and goes.  It was not until after *EVERY SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER DIED* that the law changed.  What happened?
> 
> In 1875 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to Congress over immigration.  Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to grant plenary powers to* ANYONE*?  The problem for the states is that they did not weigh in on this case.  The Supreme Court was not that satisfied with their own ruling.  According to Wikipedia:
> 
> "_The court was also critical of the* State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration*, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case_."
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> So, during the lives of the founders, the *STATES* controlled migration (foreigners coming in and out of states to work.)  How come you suppose *NOT ONE FOUNDER OF THIS COUNTRY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT PRACTICE?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is no longer a State power since 1808.
Click to expand...

It hasn't been a state power since 1781 when the Articles of Confederation took it over via section 4.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order to solve this, the right needs to get over the idea that everyone who comes here should become a citizen.
> 
> They mistake regulation for citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Commerce Clause not any form of Prohibition Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Commerce Clause don't have a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about.  And, yes, in the context that I spoke of, we DO have a prohibition clause.  Allow me to quote it for you:
> 
> "_No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed_," Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3.
> 
> Please don't start your silly ass trolling on this thread.  You're wrong.  In the context that I used the term, it is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought we were discussing Congress' authority over immigration issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I used the term, the only recollection I have is in terms of the right thinking that once they have deported all the undocumented foreigners, their problems end.  They don't.
> 
> The children of undocumented foreigners born in the United States are citizens of the United States and we can* NEVER* "uncitizen" them  the way the right fantasizes about it.
> 
> Having said that, I want you to think about something:
> 
> When it comes to *immigration*, the Constitution provides:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_"  Article 1 Section 8
> 
> That's it.  The Constitution *does not* give Congress any other authority.
> 
> Let's examine the facts:
> 
> The first federal immigration statute was in 1790.  Here is the law laid out for you:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen_..."
> 
> It was amended a few times, but it still limited citizenship to whites.
> 
> Despite that, people came from every corner of the globe to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  They could not become citizens, but they could work and earn money.
> 
> IF the law was supposed to give Congress any more authority, someone forgot to tell the founding fathers.  Here is why:
> 
> During the lives of *ALL* the founding fathers, the *states* controlled the issue of who comes and goes.  It was not until after *EVERY SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER DIED* that the law changed.  What happened?
> 
> In 1875 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to Congress over immigration.  Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to grant plenary powers to* ANYONE*?  The problem for the states is that they did not weigh in on this case.  The Supreme Court was not that satisfied with their own ruling.  According to Wikipedia:
> 
> "_The court was also critical of the* State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration*, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case_."
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> So, during the lives of the founders, the *STATES* controlled migration (foreigners coming in and out of states to work.)  How come you suppose *NOT ONE FOUNDER OF THIS COUNTRY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT PRACTICE?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is no longer a State power since 1808.
Click to expand...


You're being redundant.  My point is that we are no longer living under constitutional laws, but rather under a de facto / illegal government.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Commerce Clause not any form of Prohibition Clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Commerce Clause don't have a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about.  And, yes, in the context that I spoke of, we DO have a prohibition clause.  Allow me to quote it for you:
> 
> "_No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed_," Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3.
> 
> Please don't start your silly ass trolling on this thread.  You're wrong.  In the context that I used the term, it is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought we were discussing Congress' authority over immigration issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I used the term, the only recollection I have is in terms of the right thinking that once they have deported all the undocumented foreigners, their problems end.  They don't.
> 
> The children of undocumented foreigners born in the United States are citizens of the United States and we can* NEVER* "uncitizen" them  the way the right fantasizes about it.
> 
> Having said that, I want you to think about something:
> 
> When it comes to *immigration*, the Constitution provides:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_"  Article 1 Section 8
> 
> That's it.  The Constitution *does not* give Congress any other authority.
> 
> Let's examine the facts:
> 
> The first federal immigration statute was in 1790.  Here is the law laid out for you:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen_..."
> 
> It was amended a few times, but it still limited citizenship to whites.
> 
> Despite that, people came from every corner of the globe to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  They could not become citizens, but they could work and earn money.
> 
> IF the law was supposed to give Congress any more authority, someone forgot to tell the founding fathers.  Here is why:
> 
> During the lives of *ALL* the founding fathers, the *states* controlled the issue of who comes and goes.  It was not until after *EVERY SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER DIED* that the law changed.  What happened?
> 
> In 1875 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to Congress over immigration.  Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to grant plenary powers to* ANYONE*?  The problem for the states is that they did not weigh in on this case.  The Supreme Court was not that satisfied with their own ruling.  According to Wikipedia:
> 
> "_The court was also critical of the* State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration*, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case_."
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> So, during the lives of the founders, the *STATES* controlled migration (foreigners coming in and out of states to work.)  How come you suppose *NOT ONE FOUNDER OF THIS COUNTRY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT PRACTICE?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is no longer a State power since 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being redundant.  My point is that we are no longer living under constitutional laws, but rather under a de facto / illegal government.
Click to expand...

And, Your office to claim such a Thing?


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Commerce Clause don't have a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about.  And, yes, in the context that I spoke of, we DO have a prohibition clause.  Allow me to quote it for you:
> 
> "_No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed_," Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3.
> 
> Please don't start your silly ass trolling on this thread.  You're wrong.  In the context that I used the term, it is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we were discussing Congress' authority over immigration issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I used the term, the only recollection I have is in terms of the right thinking that once they have deported all the undocumented foreigners, their problems end.  They don't.
> 
> The children of undocumented foreigners born in the United States are citizens of the United States and we can* NEVER* "uncitizen" them  the way the right fantasizes about it.
> 
> Having said that, I want you to think about something:
> 
> When it comes to *immigration*, the Constitution provides:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_"  Article 1 Section 8
> 
> That's it.  The Constitution *does not* give Congress any other authority.
> 
> Let's examine the facts:
> 
> The first federal immigration statute was in 1790.  Here is the law laid out for you:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen_..."
> 
> It was amended a few times, but it still limited citizenship to whites.
> 
> Despite that, people came from every corner of the globe to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  They could not become citizens, but they could work and earn money.
> 
> IF the law was supposed to give Congress any more authority, someone forgot to tell the founding fathers.  Here is why:
> 
> During the lives of *ALL* the founding fathers, the *states* controlled the issue of who comes and goes.  It was not until after *EVERY SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER DIED* that the law changed.  What happened?
> 
> In 1875 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to Congress over immigration.  Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to grant plenary powers to* ANYONE*?  The problem for the states is that they did not weigh in on this case.  The Supreme Court was not that satisfied with their own ruling.  According to Wikipedia:
> 
> "_The court was also critical of the* State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration*, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case_."
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> So, during the lives of the founders, the *STATES* controlled migration (foreigners coming in and out of states to work.)  How come you suppose *NOT ONE FOUNDER OF THIS COUNTRY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT PRACTICE?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is no longer a State power since 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being redundant.  My point is that we are no longer living under constitutional laws, but rather under a de facto / illegal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, Your office to claim such a Thing?
Click to expand...


What does that mean?

Government may have the *power* to declare certain things; it surely lacks the *authority*.


----------



## yiostheoy

JoeMoma said:


> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!


I do not support violations of Federal laws.


----------



## Humorme

yiostheoy said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> I do not support violations of Federal laws.
Click to expand...


_"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_

_The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._

_An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._

_Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._

_A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._

_An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._

_Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._

_No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."_

_— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
_
Whatcha gonna do when an unconstitutional law targets you?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> I do not support violations of Federal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."_
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
> _
> Whatcha gonna do when an unconstitutional law targets you?
Click to expand...

Just because you think a law is unconstitutional doesn't make it so. Now if you would try to comprehend basic law and your quotes you might realize just how ignorant you really are. imjusayn


----------



## Esmeralda

JoeMoma said:


> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!


Matthew 25:35-40New International Version (NIV)
 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,A)"> 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me,B)"> I was sick and you looked after me,C)"> I was in prison and you came to visit me.’D)">

 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’


----------



## Moonglow

yiostheoy said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> I do not support violations of Federal laws.
Click to expand...

So you have reported every nickle you have ever made and every barter you ever carried out to make sure you were levied the correct amount?


----------



## Humorme

Moonglow said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> I do not support violations of Federal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have reported every nickle you have ever made and every barter you ever carried out to make sure you were levied the correct amount?
Click to expand...


Never owned or pirated a vhs tape, cd or dvd in his life?  Never watched one?  Some of these guys are saints.


----------



## Humorme

Esmeralda said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 25:35-40New International Version (NIV)
> 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,A)"> 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me,B)"> I was sick and you looked after me,C)"> I was in prison and you came to visit me.’D)">
> 
> 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
> 
> 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
Click to expand...



"_Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men_."  Acts 5 : 29

"_Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is *liberty*_."  II Corinthians 3 : 17

You should note that those promoting the build the wall, deport 'em all agenda don't understand what you just said.  For that matter, even if they consider themselves Christian, they do not believe that the people from south of the border are human beings.  They are not men.

In addition, those people do not believe that the concept of *liberty* applies unless and until a person becomes a United States citizen.  Unable to understand that, they *falsely accuse* those who dare interject liberty into the conversation of wanting to flood America with so - called _"illegals_"  (they really want to call them something else, but lack the ethical standards and / or the courage to do so.)

There is a way to *encourage employers* to hire Americans and pay them higher wages.  It does not require force or unconstitutional distraint.  There is a way to allow employers to run their own businesses and not to be forced into hiring (or not hiring) any specific class of people.  There is a way to respect the private property Rights of American employers, the *Liberty *of foreign workers, and the *Rights* of working Americans.

"_Stand fast therefore in the liberty with which Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage_."  Galatians 5 : 1


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we were discussing Congress' authority over immigration issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I used the term, the only recollection I have is in terms of the right thinking that once they have deported all the undocumented foreigners, their problems end.  They don't.
> 
> The children of undocumented foreigners born in the United States are citizens of the United States and we can* NEVER* "uncitizen" them  the way the right fantasizes about it.
> 
> Having said that, I want you to think about something:
> 
> When it comes to *immigration*, the Constitution provides:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_"  Article 1 Section 8
> 
> That's it.  The Constitution *does not* give Congress any other authority.
> 
> Let's examine the facts:
> 
> The first federal immigration statute was in 1790.  Here is the law laid out for you:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen_..."
> 
> It was amended a few times, but it still limited citizenship to whites.
> 
> Despite that, people came from every corner of the globe to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  They could not become citizens, but they could work and earn money.
> 
> IF the law was supposed to give Congress any more authority, someone forgot to tell the founding fathers.  Here is why:
> 
> During the lives of *ALL* the founding fathers, the *states* controlled the issue of who comes and goes.  It was not until after *EVERY SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER DIED* that the law changed.  What happened?
> 
> In 1875 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to Congress over immigration.  Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to grant plenary powers to* ANYONE*?  The problem for the states is that they did not weigh in on this case.  The Supreme Court was not that satisfied with their own ruling.  According to Wikipedia:
> 
> "_The court was also critical of the* State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration*, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case_."
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> So, during the lives of the founders, the *STATES* controlled migration (foreigners coming in and out of states to work.)  How come you suppose *NOT ONE FOUNDER OF THIS COUNTRY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT PRACTICE?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is no longer a State power since 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being redundant.  My point is that we are no longer living under constitutional laws, but rather under a de facto / illegal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, Your office to claim such a Thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Government may have the *power* to declare certain things; it surely lacks the *authority*.
Click to expand...

For example?

It is usually just, lousy management not a lack of power to provide for the general welfare.


----------



## danielpalos

yiostheoy said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> I do not support violations of Federal laws.
Click to expand...

 end the drug war!  don't be illegal to our Commerce Clause!


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I used the term, the only recollection I have is in terms of the right thinking that once they have deported all the undocumented foreigners, their problems end.  They don't.
> 
> The children of undocumented foreigners born in the United States are citizens of the United States and we can* NEVER* "uncitizen" them  the way the right fantasizes about it.
> 
> Having said that, I want you to think about something:
> 
> When it comes to *immigration*, the Constitution provides:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_"  Article 1 Section 8
> 
> That's it.  The Constitution *does not* give Congress any other authority.
> 
> Let's examine the facts:
> 
> The first federal immigration statute was in 1790.  Here is the law laid out for you:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen_..."
> 
> It was amended a few times, but it still limited citizenship to whites.
> 
> Despite that, people came from every corner of the globe to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  They could not become citizens, but they could work and earn money.
> 
> IF the law was supposed to give Congress any more authority, someone forgot to tell the founding fathers.  Here is why:
> 
> During the lives of *ALL* the founding fathers, the *states* controlled the issue of who comes and goes.  It was not until after *EVERY SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER DIED* that the law changed.  What happened?
> 
> In 1875 in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to Congress over immigration.  Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to grant plenary powers to* ANYONE*?  The problem for the states is that they did not weigh in on this case.  The Supreme Court was not that satisfied with their own ruling.  According to Wikipedia:
> 
> "_The court was also critical of the* State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration*, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case_."
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> So, during the lives of the founders, the *STATES* controlled migration (foreigners coming in and out of states to work.)  How come you suppose *NOT ONE FOUNDER OF THIS COUNTRY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT PRACTICE?*
> 
> 
> 
> It is no longer a State power since 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being redundant.  My point is that we are no longer living under constitutional laws, but rather under a de facto / illegal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, Your office to claim such a Thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Government may have the *power* to declare certain things; it surely lacks the *authority*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For example?
> 
> It is usually just, lousy management not a lack of power to provide for the general welfare.
Click to expand...


I gave an example earlier how the United States Supreme Court has opined that no one is obligated to obey an unconstitutional law.

They underlying problem in this country is that it is controlled by at least two different and opposing governments:

The de jure / lawful / constitutional government in this country consists of a constitutional Republic with the Constitution being the law of the land through the people who have* unalienable *Rights.

The other government operating in the United States is a de facto / illegal / Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.  Rights are then decided by henchmen through the American Bar Association (the most liberal body in the United States of America.)  So, at the end of the day those henchmen, aka judges, have unilaterally determined that they (not, we the people) are the final arbiters of what the law is.  See the United States Supreme Court decision Marbury v Madison for more details.

Since the tyrants in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption decide your fate, they will not allow you to protest unconstitutional actions without their permission.  It's tyrannical to the core.  I highly doubt that our forefathers would have founded a nation that would not allow us to exercise the same non-violent avenues of redress they used against King George  with the expectation that we can maintain the Republic.


----------



## danielpalos

The general power to provide for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> The general power to provide for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.



General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The general power to provide for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.
Click to expand...

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  

The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The general power to provide for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.
> 
> The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.
Click to expand...


Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "_right wing_" you always reference?  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"T_he Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government_.[13]"

General welfare clause - Wikipedia

I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is _"right wing._"   And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves.  And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority.  This can be seen from examples such as this one:

15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal

I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

That is the republican doctrine.

This is the federal doctrine:

The Congress shall have Power _To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,_

_to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;_

_ but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;_


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> That is the republican doctrine.
> 
> This is the federal doctrine:
> 
> The Congress shall have Power _To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,_
> 
> _to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;_
> 
> _ but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;_



Constitutional "Doctrine"

*ORIGINAL INTENT*  (Would you like me to quote the founders?)


----------



## Wyatt earp

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The general power to provide for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.
> 
> The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "_right wing_" you always reference?  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
> 
> "T_he Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]
> 
> These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government_.[13]"
> 
> General welfare clause - Wikipedia
> 
> I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is _"right wing._"   And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves.  And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority.  This can be seen from examples such as this one:
> 
> 15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal
> 
> I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.
Click to expand...



That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing 


.


----------



## Humorme

bear513 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The general power to provide for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.
> 
> The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "_right wing_" you always reference?  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
> 
> "T_he Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]
> 
> These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government_.[13]"
> 
> General welfare clause - Wikipedia
> 
> I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is _"right wing._"   And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves.  And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority.  This can be seen from examples such as this one:
> 
> 15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal
> 
> I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days.  Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Humorme said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The general power to provide for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.
> 
> The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "_right wing_" you always reference?  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
> 
> "T_he Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]
> 
> These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government_.[13]"
> 
> General welfare clause - Wikipedia
> 
> I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is _"right wing._"   And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves.  And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority.  This can be seen from examples such as this one:
> 
> 15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal
> 
> I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days.  Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.
Click to expand...



When I first met him/her he used to drive me crazy I would make like a 25 word paragraph and he/she would just come back with one liners of the same stuff...and it would go back and forth till now I just now skip over the posts .


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the republican doctrine.
> 
> This is the federal doctrine:
> 
> The Congress shall have Power _To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,_
> 
> _to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;_
> 
> _ but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional "Doctrine"
> 
> *ORIGINAL INTENT*  (Would you like me to quote the founders?)
Click to expand...

It is the federal doctrine not the republican doctrine.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The general power to provide for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.
> 
> The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "_right wing_" you always reference?  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
> 
> "T_he Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]
> 
> These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government_.[13]"
> 
> General welfare clause - Wikipedia
> 
> I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is _"right wing._"   And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves.  And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority.  This can be seen from examples such as this one:
> 
> 15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal
> 
> I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

The right wing has nothing but fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The general power to provide for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.
> 
> The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "_right wing_" you always reference?  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
> 
> "T_he Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]
> 
> These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government_.[13]"
> 
> General welfare clause - Wikipedia
> 
> I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is _"right wing._"   And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves.  And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority.  This can be seen from examples such as this one:
> 
> 15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal
> 
> I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days.  Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.
Click to expand...

I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.
> 
> The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "_right wing_" you always reference?  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
> 
> "T_he Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]
> 
> These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government_.[13]"
> 
> General welfare clause - Wikipedia
> 
> I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is _"right wing._"   And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves.  And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority.  This can be seen from examples such as this one:
> 
> 15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal
> 
> I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days.  Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When I first met him/her he used to drive me crazy I would make like a 25 word paragraph and he/she would just come back with one liners of the same stuff...and it would go back and forth till now I just now skip over the posts .
Click to expand...

Walls of text with nothing but fallacy is why I don't waste too much time.


----------



## Humorme

bear513 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.
> 
> The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "_right wing_" you always reference?  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
> 
> "T_he Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]
> 
> These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government_.[13]"
> 
> General welfare clause - Wikipedia
> 
> I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is _"right wing._"   And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves.  And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority.  This can be seen from examples such as this one:
> 
> 15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal
> 
> I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days.  Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When I first met him/her he used to drive me crazy I would make like a 25 word paragraph and he/she would just come back with one liners of the same stuff...and it would go back and forth till now I just now skip over the posts .
Click to expand...


Somebody kicked the one liner machine into auto-pilot.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Humorme said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.
> 
> The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "_right wing_" you always reference?  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
> 
> "T_he Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]
> 
> These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government_.[13]"
> 
> General welfare clause - Wikipedia
> 
> I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is _"right wing._"   And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves.  And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority.  This can be seen from examples such as this one:
> 
> 15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal
> 
> I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days.  Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When I first met him/her he used to drive me crazy I would make like a 25 word paragraph and he/she would just come back with one liners of the same stuff...and it would go back and forth till now I just now skip over the posts .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somebody kicked the one liner machine into auto-pilot.
Click to expand...

It was me I must have hurt her feelings...


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the republican doctrine.
> 
> This is the federal doctrine:
> 
> The Congress shall have Power _To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,_
> 
> _to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;_
> 
> _ but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional "Doctrine"
> 
> *ORIGINAL INTENT*  (Would you like me to quote the founders?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the federal doctrine not the republican doctrine.
Click to expand...


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.
> 
> The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "_right wing_" you always reference?  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
> 
> "T_he Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]
> 
> These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government_.[13]"
> 
> General welfare clause - Wikipedia
> 
> I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is _"right wing._"   And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves.  And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority.  This can be seen from examples such as this one:
> 
> 15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal
> 
> I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days.  Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.
> 
> The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "_right wing_" you always reference?  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
> 
> "T_he Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]
> 
> These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government_.[13]"
> 
> General welfare clause - Wikipedia
> 
> I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is _"right wing._"   And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves.  And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority.  This can be seen from examples such as this one:
> 
> 15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal
> 
> I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days.  Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.
Click to expand...


----------



## ChrisL




----------



## Humorme

ChrisL said:


>



Where do you stand on Liberty?


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the republican doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional "Doctrine"
> 
> *ORIGINAL INTENT*  (Would you like me to quote the founders?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the federal doctrine not the republican doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 170684
Click to expand...

No, we don't.  The right wing is merely clueless and Causeless. It is the republican doctrine not the federal doctrine.

This is the federal doctrine:

The Congress shall have Power _To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,_

_to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;_​
_ but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
_
Everything in underlined sentence the objective of the federal doctrine, not the republican doctrine.

Only the right wing has nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.
> 
> The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "_right wing_" you always reference?  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
> 
> "T_he Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]
> 
> These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government_.[13]"
> 
> General welfare clause - Wikipedia
> 
> I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is _"right wing._"   And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves.  And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority.  This can be seen from examples such as this one:
> 
> 15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal
> 
> I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days.  Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.
> 
> The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "_right wing_" you always reference?  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
> 
> "T_he Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]
> 
> These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government_.[13]"
> 
> General welfare clause - Wikipedia
> 
> I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is _"right wing._"   And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves.  And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority.  This can be seen from examples such as this one:
> 
> 15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal
> 
> I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days.  Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 170685
Click to expand...

The Only trolls are the ones with no argument and only propaganda.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "_right wing_" you always reference?  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
> 
> "T_he Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]
> 
> These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government_.[13]"
> 
> General welfare clause - Wikipedia
> 
> I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is _"right wing._"   And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves.  And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority.  This can be seen from examples such as this one:
> 
> 15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal
> 
> I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days.  Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "_right wing_" you always reference?  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
> 
> "T_he Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]
> 
> These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government_.[13]"
> 
> General welfare clause - Wikipedia
> 
> I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is _"right wing._"   And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves.  And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority.  This can be seen from examples such as this one:
> 
> 15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal
> 
> I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days.  Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 170685
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Only trolls are the ones with no argument and only propaganda.
Click to expand...



It is the considered opinion that nine out of every 10 posters who have read more than half a dozen of your posts agree that YOU, danielpalos are *THE consummate Troll*.

This idiocy that someone is causeless and clueless because they disagree with you is an insult that should be banned on this site as well as all others you participate on.  

You never provide anything other than a few words taken out of context from a source and *NO *explanation.  When it comes to the *interpretation* of what your sources mean, you need to *reference the men who wrote your source material*.  In this instance, let me do it for you:

"_On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

The ONLY reason you try to pass off such quotes as propaganda is that they disprove your position of a government God that relies only on popular vote to make its point.  If anyone on this board is causeless and clueless, then danielpalos, you should look in a mirror.  You can then see a shining example of that individual of which you accuse others.


----------



## KissMy

ChrisL said:


>


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days.  Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days.  Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 170685
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Only trolls are the ones with no argument and only propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is the considered opinion that nine out of every 10 posters who have read more than half a dozen of your posts agree that YOU, danielpalos are *THE consummate Troll*.
> 
> This idiocy that someone is causeless and clueless because they disagree with you is an insult that should be banned on this site as well as all others you participate on.
> 
> You never provide anything other than a few words taken out of context from a source and *NO *explanation.  When it comes to the *interpretation* of what your sources mean, you need to *reference the men who wrote your source material*.  In this instance, let me do it for you:
> 
> "_On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)
> 
> The ONLY reason you try to pass off such quotes as propaganda is that they disprove your position of a government God that relies only on popular vote to make its point.  If anyone on this board is causeless and clueless, then danielpalos, you should look in a mirror.  You can then see a shining example of that individual of which you accuse others.
Click to expand...

This is the federal doctrine:

The Congress shall have Power _To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,_

_to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;_​
_but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;_

Everything underlined is the objective of the federal doctrine, not the republican doctrine.

Only the right wing has nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.

How do you get Your version, with the federal doctrine?  Congress has the Power to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days.  Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days.  Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All you've done is to resort to fallacies.  You're not relevant lib bot.
> 
> 
> View attachment 170685
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Only trolls are the ones with no argument and only propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is the considered opinion that nine out of every 10 posters who have read more than half a dozen of your posts agree that YOU, danielpalos are *THE consummate Troll*.
> 
> This idiocy that someone is causeless and clueless because they disagree with you is an insult that should be banned on this site as well as all others you participate on.
> 
> You never provide anything other than a few words taken out of context from a source and *NO *explanation.  When it comes to the *interpretation* of what your sources mean, you need to *reference the men who wrote your source material*.  In this instance, let me do it for you:
> 
> "_On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)
> 
> The ONLY reason you try to pass off such quotes as propaganda is that they disprove your position of a government God that relies only on popular vote to make its point.  If anyone on this board is causeless and clueless, then danielpalos, you should look in a mirror.  You can then see a shining example of that individual of which you accuse others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the federal doctrine:
> 
> The Congress shall have Power _To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,_
> 
> _to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;_​
> _but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;_
> 
> Everything underlined is the objective of the federal doctrine, not the republican doctrine.
> 
> Only the right wing has nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.
> 
> How do you get Your version, with the federal doctrine?  Congress has the Power to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

_to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
_
All or none, right wingers.


----------



## KissMy

Trump asking Congress for another $18 Billion for 1st phase of border wall that he promised Mexico would pay for. Plus Trump already spent many $Billions more keeping more undocumented workers in prison while deporting fewer.


----------



## Humorme

KissMy said:


> Trump asking Congress for another $18 Billion for 1st phase of border wall that he promised Mexico would pay for. Plus Trump already spent many $Billions more keeping more undocumented workers in prison while deporting fewer.



You probably missed my questions earlier in this thread.  I think, based upon the scenarios I posted on this thread, and some I didn't, this wall deal is a big hoax and a pretext to take away your Rights.


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85% of our crops will rot in the field without illegally migrant workers. They deserve sanctuary in all 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
Click to expand...


Not sure where got the 50% but I know farmers that owns very large farms in Delano, Bakersfield and Arizona area and most or all are Illegals. Some has green cards but they are all Hispanics. 
Machine operators are also illegals.

Wages rise on California farms. Americans still don't want the job

To keep crops from rotting in the field, farmers say they need Trump to let in more temporary workers


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85% of our crops will rot in the field without illegally migrant workers. They deserve sanctuary in all 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to include packing houses, slaughter houses (feed market), and restaurants. Without all these illegal workers, our economy will take a nose dive. The farmers will only be able to salvage about 15% of their crop.
> 
> Look what happened in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, the slaughter houses had people lined up to work there when Bush raided them and got rid of all the illegal workers. Restaurants would lose buss boys, but guess what, young 16 - 20 year old's would take those jobs.
> 
> Those days without an illegal 10 or so years ago blew up in their faces. Our economy wouldn't notice them being gone.  Farmers would lose some, it wouldn't be an 85% loss, at best a 20% loss.
> 
> Alabama? some farmers claiming losses, yet produce costs did not change nor were there produce shortages in the markets. gofigure
Click to expand...


That’s funny. There are slaughterhouse here and I don’t see anyone but Hispanics. 
Oh yes guarantee you 100% they will be missed if those illegals are gone.
I don’t see 16 or even 25 yo white boys or girls working in restaurants as buss boys here. They don’t even work at McDonald’s. Kids are not the same like it used to be. Get that straight. 

Did you research what happened in Alabama? 

Where are you getting your opinions?


----------



## charwin95

As i posted several times here. I know tons of businesses and business owners and farmers. These where I based my facts and opinions when it come to this topic. 

The economy is booming. Without these illegals the economy will not be this good especially here in California the 6th largest economy of the world. That’s a fact.

California Crops Rot as Immigration Crackdown Creates Farmworker Shortage


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85% of our crops will rot in the field without illegally migrant workers. They deserve sanctuary in all 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure where got the 50% but I know farmers that owns very large farms in Delano, Bakersfield and Arizona area and most or all are Illegals. Some has green cards but they are all Hispanics.
> Machine operators are also illegals.
> 
> Wages rise on California farms. Americans still don't want the job
> 
> To keep crops from rotting in the field, farmers say they need Trump to let in more temporary workers
Click to expand...

Well which is it, most or all are illegals, yet some have green cards? I'll bet some are even US Citizens. SMFH So what if they are all Hispanic in Southern CA and AZ. PEW research gave the % number, its easy enough to look up.

As to your second link, the farmers need to use the tools they have allowed for them, namely the H2A visa, they choose not to use it. If they don't like it then they need to lobby to get it changed, but until it is they are stuck with using it, or take the chance at being caught if they knowingly hire illegals.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> As i posted several times here. I know tons of businesses and business owners and farmers. These where I based my facts and opinions when it come to this topic.
> 
> The economy is booming. Without these illegals the economy will not be this good especially here in California the 6th largest economy of the world. That’s a fact.
> 
> California Crops Rot as Immigration Crackdown Creates Farmworker Shortage


The farmers have brought it on themselves if they are not using the H2A visa as there is no limit on the amount of workers they can bring in.

Your opinion is not factual and basing what you claim as facts on the few people you know isn't a large enough pool to make a claim on.

So lets look at your link





> It’s unclear exactly how widespread the labor shortage is for farmers throughout the country, which would have a bigger impact on prices consumers pay. Ultimately, drought and flooding have a more significant impact on farms. Low oil prices could also offset any impact of the worker shortage.


What? Its unclear how widespread the labor shortage is? Drought and flooding have a bigger impact? Oil prices can offset worker shortages?

Looks like opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I suggest you don't claim opinion as fact as it always comes back to bite you.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85% of our crops will rot in the field without illegally migrant workers. They deserve sanctuary in all 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to include packing houses, slaughter houses (feed market), and restaurants. Without all these illegal workers, our economy will take a nose dive. The farmers will only be able to salvage about 15% of their crop.
> 
> Look what happened in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, the slaughter houses had people lined up to work there when Bush raided them and got rid of all the illegal workers. Restaurants would lose buss boys, but guess what, young 16 - 20 year old's would take those jobs.
> 
> Those days without an illegal 10 or so years ago blew up in their faces. Our economy wouldn't notice them being gone.  Farmers would lose some, it wouldn't be an 85% loss, at best a 20% loss.
> 
> Alabama? some farmers claiming losses, yet produce costs did not change nor were there produce shortages in the markets. gofigure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That’s funny. There are slaughterhouse here and I don’t see anyone but Hispanics.
> Oh yes guarantee you 100% they will be missed if those illegals are gone.
> I don’t see 16 or even 25 yo white boys or girls working in restaurants as buss boys here. They don’t even work at McDonald’s. Kids are not the same like it used to be. Get that straight.
> 
> Did you research what happened in Alabama?
> 
> Where are you getting your opinions?
Click to expand...

So are you assuming because they are Hispanics then they are also illegals? Sure seems you are associating there heritage to them being illegally here. SMFH

Up here in Northern California white boys and girls are working as bus boys and dishwashers in local restaurants. I have 2 McDonalds within 2 miles of where I live, the people working in them have every color of skin tone one could imagine, and they all speak English without accents. :SHRUG: 

Maybe you should actually research the subject verse reading headlines and basing your opinion off things you don't seem to adept at truly knowing.


----------



## KissMy

Trump initially said he could build a wall for $4 billion & Mexico would pay for it.. It will only take a $Billion worth of concrete. How is it now suddenly $18 Billion for a down payment? They say it will cost $70 Billion when done. That is a complete outrage!!! That would buy 5 aircraft carriers! Mexico's GDP is only $1 Trillion.

This is like Bush / Cheney saying the $5 Trillion War would only cost $40 billion!


----------



## gallantwarrior

JoeMoma said:


> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!


Illegals here should be treated exactly as their countries of origin would treat anyone illegally entering and staying in those countries would be treated.


----------



## Wyatt earp

KissMy said:


> Trump initially said he could build a wall for $4 billion & Mexico would pay for it.. It will only take a $Billion worth of concrete. How is it now suddenly $18 Billion for a down payment? They say it will cost $70 Billion when done. That is a complete outrage!!! That would buy 5 aircraft carriers! Mexico's GDP is only $1 Trillion.
> 
> This is like Bush / Cheney saying the $5 Trillion War would only cost $40 billion!




The new Ford aircraft carrier was 13 billion dollars F.Y.I.


Edit my apologies misread your post ...yup it will cost 5 aircraft carriers , still cheaper then over 70 billion a year every year on illegals


----------



## Humorme

gallantwarrior said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals here should be treated exactly as their countries of origin would treat anyone illegally entering and staying in those countries would be treated.
Click to expand...


So you are advocating that our laws should regress to the standards of a third world nation?


----------



## Humorme

charwin95 said:


> As i posted several times here. I know tons of businesses and business owners and farmers. These where I based my facts and opinions when it come to this topic.
> 
> The economy is booming. Without these illegals the economy will not be this good especially here in California the 6th largest economy of the world. That’s a fact.
> 
> California Crops Rot as Immigration Crackdown Creates Farmworker Shortage




Georgia has had the same problem for years:

Georgia's Harsh Immigration Law Costs Millions in Unharvested Crops

Migrant workers still in need

"_Crops went untended as the season's harvest began, and more than $1 million a day vanished as the human-fueled agricultural harvest machine of migrant labor in the United States stalled_."

Ben Carson's Immigrant Visa Idea Favored By Farmers As Nation's Crops Rot

It's been an issue in Alabama for years as well and some say this is a problem nationwide (and has been for as long as the crackdowns have been going on):

Alabama Illegal Immigrant Crackdown Destroys Farm Business

Crops rot while Trump-led immigration backlash idles farm work


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i posted several times here. I know tons of businesses and business owners and farmers. These where I based my facts and opinions when it come to this topic.
> 
> The economy is booming. Without these illegals the economy will not be this good especially here in California the 6th largest economy of the world. That’s a fact.
> 
> California Crops Rot as Immigration Crackdown Creates Farmworker Shortage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Georgia has had the same problem for years:
> 
> Georgia's Harsh Immigration Law Costs Millions in Unharvested Crops
> 
> Migrant workers still in need
> 
> "_Crops went untended as the season's harvest began, and more than $1 million a day vanished as the human-fueled agricultural harvest machine of migrant labor in the United States stalled_."
> 
> Ben Carson's Immigrant Visa Idea Favored By Farmers As Nation's Crops Rot
> 
> It's been an issue in Alabama for years as well and some say this is a problem nationwide (and has been for as long as the crackdowns have been going on):
> 
> Alabama Illegal Immigrant Crackdown Destroys Farm Business
> 
> Crops rot while Trump-led immigration backlash idles farm work
Click to expand...

If they used the H2A visa, then there would be no problems for them, they would have all the labor they need since there are no annual caps for the H2A nor is there a limit to how many a single farmer can bring in.


----------



## KissMy

bear513 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump initially said he could build a wall for $4 billion & Mexico would pay for it.. It will only take a $Billion worth of concrete. How is it now suddenly $18 Billion for a down payment? They say it will cost $70 Billion when done. That is a complete outrage!!! That would buy 5 aircraft carriers! Mexico's GDP is only $1 Trillion.
> 
> This is like Bush / Cheney saying the $5 Trillion War would only cost $40 billion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new Ford aircraft carrier was 13 billion dollars F.Y.I.
> 
> Edit my apologies misread your post ...yup it will cost 5 aircraft carriers , still cheaper then over 70 billion a year every year on illegals
Click to expand...


That is a total LIE! Illegals don't get welfare! So we won't save a dime! Trump is throwing away $70 billion that we need to use to replace water & sewer lines.

We need to force Trump to stick to that $4 billion promise so we can cut down on the $2 Billion we spend on Border Patrol every year!


----------



## Wyatt earp

KissMy said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump initially said he could build a wall for $4 billion & Mexico would pay for it.. It will only take a $Billion worth of concrete. How is it now suddenly $18 Billion for a down payment? They say it will cost $70 Billion when done. That is a complete outrage!!! That would buy 5 aircraft carriers! Mexico's GDP is only $1 Trillion.
> 
> This is like Bush / Cheney saying the $5 Trillion War would only cost $40 billion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new Ford aircraft carrier was 13 billion dollars F.Y.I.
> 
> Edit my apologies misread your post ...yup it will cost 5 aircraft carriers , still cheaper then over 70 billion a year every year on illegals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a total LIE! Illegals don't get welfare! So we won't save a dime! Trump is throwing away $70 billion that we need to use to replace water & sewer lines.
Click to expand...


ER cost, schooling cost, jail cost, low wages...it all adds up



Use your common sense and brains please and thank you


----------



## Wyatt earp

KissMy said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump initially said he could build a wall for $4 billion & Mexico would pay for it.. It will only take a $Billion worth of concrete. How is it now suddenly $18 Billion for a down payment? They say it will cost $70 Billion when done. That is a complete outrage!!! That would buy 5 aircraft carriers! Mexico's GDP is only $1 Trillion.
> 
> This is like Bush / Cheney saying the $5 Trillion War would only cost $40 billion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new Ford aircraft carrier was 13 billion dollars F.Y.I.
> 
> Edit my apologies misread your post ...yup it will cost 5 aircraft carriers , still cheaper then over 70 billion a year every year on illegals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a total LIE! Illegals don't get welfare! So we won't save a dime! Trump is throwing away $70 billion that we need to use to replace water & sewer lines.
Click to expand...



Btw I thought Obama's 800 billion dollar stimulus was supposed  to pay for that?


----------



## Humorme

KissMy said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump initially said he could build a wall for $4 billion & Mexico would pay for it.. It will only take a $Billion worth of concrete. How is it now suddenly $18 Billion for a down payment? They say it will cost $70 Billion when done. That is a complete outrage!!! That would buy 5 aircraft carriers! Mexico's GDP is only $1 Trillion.
> 
> This is like Bush / Cheney saying the $5 Trillion War would only cost $40 billion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new Ford aircraft carrier was 13 billion dollars F.Y.I.
> 
> Edit my apologies misread your post ...yup it will cost 5 aircraft carriers , still cheaper then over 70 billion a year every year on illegals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a total LIE! Illegals don't get welfare! So we won't save a dime! Trump is throwing away $70 billion that we need to use to replace water & sewer lines.
> 
> We need to force Trump to stick to that $4 billion promise so we can cut down on the $2 Billion we spend on Border Patrol every year!
Click to expand...



The reality is that the math says the wall will cost more to build and maintain than any perceived savings.  What is worse, it's not going to stop people from crossing the border.  

Trump is a businessman, so why would he get involved in a financial clusterphuck that only hurts the working class and middle class?  Well, how come his tax breaks were permanent for big business, but temporary for the workers?

We are only seeing business react to the temporary stimulus that Trump was able to seem to create (but that is an illusion.)  Everything is looking good for the moment, but it will come at a price one day and the rich are arranging it so that the working class will pay for it.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Humorme said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump initially said he could build a wall for $4 billion & Mexico would pay for it.. It will only take a $Billion worth of concrete. How is it now suddenly $18 Billion for a down payment? They say it will cost $70 Billion when done. That is a complete outrage!!! That would buy 5 aircraft carriers! Mexico's GDP is only $1 Trillion.
> 
> This is like Bush / Cheney saying the $5 Trillion War would only cost $40 billion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new Ford aircraft carrier was 13 billion dollars F.Y.I.
> 
> Edit my apologies misread your post ...yup it will cost 5 aircraft carriers , still cheaper then over 70 billion a year every year on illegals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a total LIE! Illegals don't get welfare! So we won't save a dime! Trump is throwing away $70 billion that we need to use to replace water & sewer lines.
> 
> We need to force Trump to stick to that $4 billion promise so we can cut down on the $2 Billion we spend on Border Patrol every year!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that the math says the wall will cost more to build and maintain than any perceived savings.  What is worse, it's not going to stop people from crossing the border.
> 
> Trump is a businessman, so why would he get involved in a financial clusterphuck that only hurts the working class and middle class?  Well, how come his tax breaks were permanent for big business, but temporary for the workers?
> 
> We are only seeing business react to the temporary stimulus that Trump was able to seem to create (but that is an illusion.)  Everything is looking good for the moment, but it will come at a price one day and the rich are arranging it so that the working class will pay for it.
Click to expand...



It's called physiology...making a statement just like our huge military complex is spend more money build huge aircraft carrier fleets ..

What did FDR once say? Talk softly and Carry a big stick..


Trump talks gibberish , builds the damn wall and future presidents can talk softly..

Do you get my logic?


----------



## JoeMoma

bear513 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump initially said he could build a wall for $4 billion & Mexico would pay for it.. It will only take a $Billion worth of concrete. How is it now suddenly $18 Billion for a down payment? They say it will cost $70 Billion when done. That is a complete outrage!!! That would buy 5 aircraft carriers! Mexico's GDP is only $1 Trillion.
> 
> This is like Bush / Cheney saying the $5 Trillion War would only cost $40 billion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new Ford aircraft carrier was 13 billion dollars F.Y.I.
> 
> Edit my apologies misread your post ...yup it will cost 5 aircraft carriers , still cheaper then over 70 billion a year every year on illegals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a total LIE! Illegals don't get welfare! So we won't save a dime! Trump is throwing away $70 billion that we need to use to replace water & sewer lines.
> 
> We need to force Trump to stick to that $4 billion promise so we can cut down on the $2 Billion we spend on Border Patrol every year!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that the math says the wall will cost more to build and maintain than any perceived savings.  What is worse, it's not going to stop people from crossing the border.
> 
> Trump is a businessman, so why would he get involved in a financial clusterphuck that only hurts the working class and middle class?  Well, how come his tax breaks were permanent for big business, but temporary for the workers?
> 
> We are only seeing business react to the temporary stimulus that Trump was able to seem to create (but that is an illusion.)  Everything is looking good for the moment, but it will come at a price one day and the rich are arranging it so that the working class will pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's called physiology...making a statement just like our huge military complex is spend more money build huge aircraft carrier fleets ..
> 
> What did FDR once say? Talk softly and Carry a big stick..
> 
> 
> Trump talks gibberish , builds the damn wall and future presidents can talk softly..
> 
> Do you get my logic?
Click to expand...

That’s what Ted Roosevelt said, not FDR (unless FDR quoted TR)


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

KissMy said:


> Trump initially said he could build a wall for $4 billion & Mexico would pay for it.. It will only take a $Billion worth of concrete. How is it now suddenly $18 Billion for a down payment? They say it will cost $70 Billion when done. That is a complete outrage!!! That would buy 5 aircraft carriers! Mexico's GDP is only $1 Trillion.
> 
> This is like Bush / Cheney saying the $5 Trillion War would only cost $40 billion!


----------



## Wyatt earp

JoeMoma said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump initially said he could build a wall for $4 billion & Mexico would pay for it.. It will only take a $Billion worth of concrete. How is it now suddenly $18 Billion for a down payment? They say it will cost $70 Billion when done. That is a complete outrage!!! That would buy 5 aircraft carriers! Mexico's GDP is only $1 Trillion.
> 
> This is like Bush / Cheney saying the $5 Trillion War would only cost $40 billion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new Ford aircraft carrier was 13 billion dollars F.Y.I.
> 
> Edit my apologies misread your post ...yup it will cost 5 aircraft carriers , still cheaper then over 70 billion a year every year on illegals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a total LIE! Illegals don't get welfare! So we won't save a dime! Trump is throwing away $70 billion that we need to use to replace water & sewer lines.
> 
> We need to force Trump to stick to that $4 billion promise so we can cut down on the $2 Billion we spend on Border Patrol every year!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that the math says the wall will cost more to build and maintain than any perceived savings.  What is worse, it's not going to stop people from crossing the border.
> 
> Trump is a businessman, so why would he get involved in a financial clusterphuck that only hurts the working class and middle class?  Well, how come his tax breaks were permanent for big business, but temporary for the workers?
> 
> We are only seeing business react to the temporary stimulus that Trump was able to seem to create (but that is an illusion.)  Everything is looking good for the moment, but it will come at a price one day and the rich are arranging it so that the working class will pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's called physiology...making a statement just like our huge military complex is spend more money build huge aircraft carrier fleets ..
> 
> What did FDR once say? Talk softly and Carry a big stick..
> 
> 
> Trump talks gibberish , builds the damn wall and future presidents can talk softly..
> 
> Do you get my logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s what Ted Roosevelt said, not FDR (unless FDR quoted TR)
Click to expand...



Thank you i get them confused some times both of them were great Americans..i know I will bitch about FDR...but he did the best job he could of done under the circumstances


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump initially said he could build a wall for $4 billion & Mexico would pay for it.. It will only take a $Billion worth of concrete. How is it now suddenly $18 Billion for a down payment? They say it will cost $70 Billion when done. That is a complete outrage!!! That would buy 5 aircraft carriers! Mexico's GDP is only $1 Trillion.
> 
> This is like Bush / Cheney saying the $5 Trillion War would only cost $40 billion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new Ford aircraft carrier was 13 billion dollars F.Y.I.
> 
> Edit my apologies misread your post ...yup it will cost 5 aircraft carriers , still cheaper then over 70 billion a year every year on illegals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a total LIE! Illegals don't get welfare! So we won't save a dime! Trump is throwing away $70 billion that we need to use to replace water & sewer lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ER cost, schooling cost, jail cost, low wages...it all adds up
> 
> 
> 
> Use your common sense and brains please and thank you
Click to expand...

Enforcement and all that red tape, costs more.


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump initially said he could build a wall for $4 billion & Mexico would pay for it.. It will only take a $Billion worth of concrete. How is it now suddenly $18 Billion for a down payment? They say it will cost $70 Billion when done. That is a complete outrage!!! That would buy 5 aircraft carriers! Mexico's GDP is only $1 Trillion.
> 
> This is like Bush / Cheney saying the $5 Trillion War would only cost $40 billion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new Ford aircraft carrier was 13 billion dollars F.Y.I.
> 
> Edit my apologies misread your post ...yup it will cost 5 aircraft carriers , still cheaper then over 70 billion a year every year on illegals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a total LIE! Illegals don't get welfare! So we won't save a dime! Trump is throwing away $70 billion that we need to use to replace water & sewer lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ER cost, schooling cost, jail cost, low wages...it all adds up
> 
> 
> 
> Use your common sense and brains please and thank you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforcement and all that red tape, costs more.
Click to expand...




We can start by shipping you back to your home land of Easter island


----------



## KissMy

This inflated price includes adding 5,000 new Border Patrol agents & increased pay & benefits. *The wall was supposed to reduce the need for agents!* 

We already employ 14 agents per mile.! This will increase that to 18 agents per mile. They can hold hands across the border & we don need a wall. 1 agent with binoculars, radio & rifle can see & cover a half mile each way = 1 agent per mile. The true border zig-zags along rivers, but In straight lines it's only 1,500 miles.

This is just another *Big Government Boondoggle!* Look at satellite view along the border. These agents are not there! This is just paying off a bunch of political swampers!


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump initially said he could build a wall for $4 billion & Mexico would pay for it.. It will only take a $Billion worth of concrete. How is it now suddenly $18 Billion for a down payment? They say it will cost $70 Billion when done. That is a complete outrage!!! That would buy 5 aircraft carriers! Mexico's GDP is only $1 Trillion.
> 
> This is like Bush / Cheney saying the $5 Trillion War would only cost $40 billion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new Ford aircraft carrier was 13 billion dollars F.Y.I.
> 
> Edit my apologies misread your post ...yup it will cost 5 aircraft carriers , still cheaper then over 70 billion a year every year on illegals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a total LIE! Illegals don't get welfare! So we won't save a dime! Trump is throwing away $70 billion that we need to use to replace water & sewer lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ER cost, schooling cost, jail cost, low wages...it all adds up
> 
> 
> 
> Use your common sense and brains please and thank you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforcement and all that red tape, costs more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can start by shipping you back to your home land of Easter island
Click to expand...

after a full body massage with happy ending?


----------



## Skull Pilot

KissMy said:


> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.


The US Constitution applies to citizens of the US not those here illegally


----------



## Skull Pilot

KissMy said:


> This inflated price includes adding 5,000 new Border Patrol agents & increased pay & benefits. *The wall was supposed to reduce the need for agents!*
> 
> We already employ 14 agents per mile.! This will increase that to 18 agents per mile. They can hold hands across the border & we don need a wall. 1 agent with binoculars, radio & rifle can see & cover a half mile each way = 1 agent per mile. The true border zig-zags along rivers, but In straight lines it's only 1,500 miles.
> 
> This is just another *Big Government Boondoggle!* Look at satellite view along the border. These agents are not there! This is just paying off a bunch of political swampers!


You mean a boondoggle like all those infrastructure projects like the big dig in Boston?

Funny how all you dems are in favor of those boondoggles


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new Ford aircraft carrier was 13 billion dollars F.Y.I.
> 
> Edit my apologies misread your post ...yup it will cost 5 aircraft carriers , still cheaper then over 70 billion a year every year on illegals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a total LIE! Illegals don't get welfare! So we won't save a dime! Trump is throwing away $70 billion that we need to use to replace water & sewer lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ER cost, schooling cost, jail cost, low wages...it all adds up
> 
> 
> 
> Use your common sense and brains please and thank you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforcement and all that red tape, costs more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can start by shipping you back to your home land of Easter island
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after a full body massage with happy ending?
Click to expand...



You do know I could report you for solicitations on here for your illegal massage parlor , right?


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a total LIE! Illegals don't get welfare! So we won't save a dime! Trump is throwing away $70 billion that we need to use to replace water & sewer lines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ER cost, schooling cost, jail cost, low wages...it all adds up
> 
> 
> 
> Use your common sense and brains please and thank you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforcement and all that red tape, costs more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can start by shipping you back to your home land of Easter island
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after a full body massage with happy ending?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do know I could report you for solicitations on here for your illegal massage parlor , right?
Click to expand...

Don't believe in Capitalism?  I have a happy camper policy.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ER cost, schooling cost, jail cost, low wages...it all adds up
> 
> 
> 
> Use your common sense and brains please and thank you
> 
> 
> 
> Enforcement and all that red tape, costs more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can start by shipping you back to your home land of Easter island
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after a full body massage with happy ending?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do know I could report you for solicitations on here for your illegal massage parlor , right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't believe in Capitalism?  I have a happy camper policy.
Click to expand...

Well at least all that masturbation practice has given you a salable skill


----------



## KissMy

Skull Pilot said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This inflated price includes adding 5,000 new Border Patrol agents & increased pay & benefits. *The wall was supposed to reduce the need for agents!*
> 
> We already employ 14 agents per mile.! This will increase that to 18 agents per mile. They can hold hands across the border & we don need a wall. 1 agent with binoculars, radio & rifle can see & cover a half mile each way = 1 agent per mile. The true border zig-zags along rivers, but In straight lines it's only 1,500 miles.
> 
> This is just another *Big Government Boondoggle!* Look at satellite view along the border. These agents are not there! This is just paying off a bunch of political swampers!
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a boondoggle like all those infrastructure projects like the big dig in Boston?
> 
> Funny how all you dems are in favor of those boondoggles
Click to expand...

I have seen Dems cut spending & create surplus. I never saw Repubtards do that, they only Spend & Borrow!

To prevent the REPUBLICAN'S JOB KILLING RECESSIONS government has to borrow & spend in bad times then slash & save in good times! Only Repubtards cause JOB KILLING RECESSIONS, because they can't stop creating unsustainable Spend & Borrow Debt Bubbles!!!


----------



## Skull Pilot

KissMy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This inflated price includes adding 5,000 new Border Patrol agents & increased pay & benefits. *The wall was supposed to reduce the need for agents!*
> 
> We already employ 14 agents per mile.! This will increase that to 18 agents per mile. They can hold hands across the border & we don need a wall. 1 agent with binoculars, radio & rifle can see & cover a half mile each way = 1 agent per mile. The true border zig-zags along rivers, but In straight lines it's only 1,500 miles.
> 
> This is just another *Big Government Boondoggle!* Look at satellite view along the border. These agents are not there! This is just paying off a bunch of political swampers!
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a boondoggle like all those infrastructure projects like the big dig in Boston?
> 
> Funny how all you dems are in favor of those boondoggles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have seen Dems cut spending & create surplus. I never saw Repubtards do that, they only Spend & Borrow!
Click to expand...

You do realize that as long as we have debt there can be no surplus don't you?


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enforcement and all that red tape, costs more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can start by shipping you back to your home land of Easter island
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after a full body massage with happy ending?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do know I could report you for solicitations on here for your illegal massage parlor , right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't believe in Capitalism?  I have a happy camper policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well at least all that masturbation practice has given you a salable skill
Click to expand...

thank goodness for modern times and large screen tvs.


----------



## KissMy

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can start by shipping you back to your home land of Easter island
> 
> 
> 
> after a full body massage with happy ending?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do know I could report you for solicitations on here for your illegal massage parlor , right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't believe in Capitalism?  I have a happy camper policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well at least all that masturbation practice has given you a salable skill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thank goodness for modern times and large screen tvs.
Click to expand...

That's another thing Republicans Hate!


----------



## Humorme

Skull Pilot said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution applies to citizens of the US not those here illegally
Click to expand...


*Wrong.*  The 14th Amendment, albeit illegally ratified provides:

"_All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*_."

I stated earlier in this thread that the build the wall - deport 'em all guys cannot understand the difference between the Rights of man and the privileges / benefits of citizenship.  And now they are proving it.

Notice in the 14th Amendment that a *person *born in the United States is a *citizen*  entitled to certain *privileges and immunities*.  The phrase *any person* is inclusive of all human beings.  Every human being whose feet hit U.S. soil are automatically entitled to Life, Liberty, Property AND Due Process.

But, again, in white supremacist parlance, those guys do not see the foreigners as even being human beings.  In their world, only a government / God can bestow upon you any _"rights_" and those "_rights_" are only given to citizens.  They can't be any more wrong on this even if they tried.


----------



## KissMy

Skull Pilot said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This inflated price includes adding 5,000 new Border Patrol agents & increased pay & benefits. *The wall was supposed to reduce the need for agents!*
> 
> We already employ 14 agents per mile.! This will increase that to 18 agents per mile. They can hold hands across the border & we don need a wall. 1 agent with binoculars, radio & rifle can see & cover a half mile each way = 1 agent per mile. The true border zig-zags along rivers, but In straight lines it's only 1,500 miles.
> 
> This is just another *Big Government Boondoggle!* Look at satellite view along the border. These agents are not there! This is just paying off a bunch of political swampers!
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a boondoggle like all those infrastructure projects like the big dig in Boston?
> 
> Funny how all you dems are in favor of those boondoggles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have seen Dems cut spending & create surplus. I never saw Repubtards do that, they only Spend & Borrow!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that as long as we have debt there can be no surplus don't you?
Click to expand...


Again I will explain it really slow for you! Debt is not the same as Deficit! First you have to cut spending in good times to stop running a Deficit. Then keep tax revenue to create a surplus to pay down some Debt & prevent recessions. Repubtards have never taken the first step to cut spending, they only drag US backwards!!!

EVERY JOB KILLING RECESSION WAS CAUSED BY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT!!! Every Republican President Caused a Job Killing Recession equal to the number of terms they served!

DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS DO NOT CAUSE JOB KILLING RECESSIONS!!!

Why Don't Trumptards make those 21,000 Border Agents we are Paying for get their asses out on the Border & Do Their JOB!!!??? Satellite view shows gaps larger than 50 miles between border patrols.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Humorme said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution applies to citizens of the US not those here illegally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wrong.*  The 14th Amendment, albeit illegally ratified provides:
> 
> "_All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*_."
> 
> I stated earlier in this thread that the build the wall - deport 'em all guys cannot understand the difference between the Rights of man and the privileges / benefits of citizenship.  And now they are proving it.
> 
> Notice in the 14th Amendment that a *person *born in the United States is a *citizen*  entitled to certain *privileges and immunities*.  The phrase *any person* is inclusive of all human beings.  Every human being whose feet hit U.S. soil are automatically entitled to Life, Liberty, Property AND Due Process.
> 
> But, again, in white supremacist parlance, those guys do not see the foreigners as even being human beings.  In their world, only a government / God can bestow upon you any _"rights_" and those "_rights_" are only given to citizens.  They can't be any more wrong on this even if they tried.
Click to expand...

Foreigners are human it's just that the foreigners who break our immigration laws are piece of shit criminals.


----------



## Skull Pilot

KissMy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This inflated price includes adding 5,000 new Border Patrol agents & increased pay & benefits. *The wall was supposed to reduce the need for agents!*
> 
> We already employ 14 agents per mile.! This will increase that to 18 agents per mile. They can hold hands across the border & we don need a wall. 1 agent with binoculars, radio & rifle can see & cover a half mile each way = 1 agent per mile. The true border zig-zags along rivers, but In straight lines it's only 1,500 miles.
> 
> This is just another *Big Government Boondoggle!* Look at satellite view along the border. These agents are not there! This is just paying off a bunch of political swampers!
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a boondoggle like all those infrastructure projects like the big dig in Boston?
> 
> Funny how all you dems are in favor of those boondoggles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have seen Dems cut spending & create surplus. I never saw Repubtards do that, they only Spend & Borrow!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that as long as we have debt there can be no surplus don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I will explain it really slow for you! Debt is not the same as Deficit! First you have to cut spending in good times to stop running a Deficit. Then keep tax revenue to create a surplus to pay down some Debt & prevent recessions. Repubtards have never taken the first step to cut spending, they only drag US backwards!!!
> 
> EVERY JOB KILLING RECESSION WAS CAUSED BY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT!!! Every Republican President Caused a Job Killing Recession equal to the number of terms they served!
> 
> DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS DO NOT CAUSE JOB KILLING RECESSIONS!!!
> 
> Why Don't Trumptards make those 21,000 Border Agents we are Paying for get their asses out on the Border & Do Their JOB!!!??? Satellite view shows gaps larger than 5 miles between border patrols.
Click to expand...


I realize the difference between debt and deficit you don't if you think a one year budget surplus is something to coo about


----------



## KissMy

Look at satellite map images between Laredo, Texas & Eagle Pass, Texas. There are 30 mile patrol gaps in there. What are we paying 21,000 of them for?


----------



## Humorme

Skull Pilot said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution applies to citizens of the US not those here illegally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wrong.*  The 14th Amendment, albeit illegally ratified provides:
> 
> "_All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*_."
> 
> I stated earlier in this thread that the build the wall - deport 'em all guys cannot understand the difference between the Rights of man and the privileges / benefits of citizenship.  And now they are proving it.
> 
> Notice in the 14th Amendment that a *person *born in the United States is a *citizen*  entitled to certain *privileges and immunities*.  The phrase *any person* is inclusive of all human beings.  Every human being whose feet hit U.S. soil are automatically entitled to Life, Liberty, Property AND Due Process.
> 
> But, again, in white supremacist parlance, those guys do not see the foreigners as even being human beings.  In their world, only a government / God can bestow upon you any _"rights_" and those "_rights_" are only given to citizens.  They can't be any more wrong on this even if they tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreigners are human it's just that the foreigners who break our immigration laws are piece of shit criminals.
Click to expand...



People that come here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly *offered are not criminals.  The free market allows anybody to participate.  So, you'd rather crops rot in the field and a man's family go hungry and / or starve / die from disease than to take a job willingly offered?

You think that* Liberty* should be defined by a piece of paper from a tyrannical government?  And you call people a name like piece of shit criminal?  Would you worry about getting permission to work and earn some money to feed yourself and / or your spouse or children?  If that's your stance, most honest people would have a lower opinion of you than you do of undocumented immigrants.

Speaking of criminality, do you mean to tell us you've never watched a pirated dvd or listened to a pirated cd?  You've never watched an illegally downloaded movie?  You've never broken the speed limit or made an improper U turn?  You've accurately reported every single nickel you've made to the IRS and you've always reported every gift, profit, or money made from any side job?  You've never taken a single thing... not even a rubber band from a previous employer?

You've already said that those people don't have constitutional rights.  That means you agree that if the government decides that *YOU* don't have any Rights, you are going to abide by that.  The problem you have is that if Rights come from government and not via a Creator then *YOU* don't have a Right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, or even Freedom of Religion.  You cannot own a firearm if the government decides that you shouldn't.  As a matter of* fact*, you don't have any Liberties given your rationale.

Either Rights come from a Creator (as per the Declaration of Independence) *OR* they are given by a God / government.  We don't get to have it both ways.  When a statute encroaches upon that principle, you are obligated to stand against it.  Today,* WITHOUT* a wall,  America is approaching statistical zero unemployment (which is generally defined as unemployment below 3 percent.)  My interest in the whole topic is that you cannot infringe upon their* Liberties* without infringing upon *mine* (as well as your own.)  Since the proposed solutions by your side will cost more than they can save AND they come at a price to *our fundamental Liberties*, what is the upside?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Humorme said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution applies to citizens of the US not those here illegally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wrong.*  The 14th Amendment, albeit illegally ratified provides:
> 
> "_All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*_."
> 
> I stated earlier in this thread that the build the wall - deport 'em all guys cannot understand the difference between the Rights of man and the privileges / benefits of citizenship.  And now they are proving it.
> 
> Notice in the 14th Amendment that a *person *born in the United States is a *citizen*  entitled to certain *privileges and immunities*.  The phrase *any person* is inclusive of all human beings.  Every human being whose feet hit U.S. soil are automatically entitled to Life, Liberty, Property AND Due Process.
> 
> But, again, in white supremacist parlance, those guys do not see the foreigners as even being human beings.  In their world, only a government / God can bestow upon you any _"rights_" and those "_rights_" are only given to citizens.  They can't be any more wrong on this even if they tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreigners are human it's just that the foreigners who break our immigration laws are piece of shit criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People that come here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly *offered are not criminals.  The free market allows anybody to participate.  So, you'd rather crops rot in the field and a man's family go hungry and / or starve / die from disease than to take a job willingly offered?
> 
> You think that* Liberty* should be defined by a piece of paper from a tyrannical government?  And you call people a name like piece of shit criminal?  Would you worry about getting permission to work and earn some money to feed yourself and / or your spouse or children?  If that's your stance, most honest people would have a lower opinion of you than you do of undocumented immigrants.
> 
> Speaking of criminality, do you mean to tell us you've never watched a pirated dvd or listened to a pirated cd?  You've never watched an illegally downloaded movie?  You've never broken the speed limit or made an improper U turn?  You've accurately reported every single nickel you've made to the IRS and you've always reported every gift, profit, or money made from any side job?  You've never taken a single thing... not even a rubber band from a previous employer?
> 
> You've already said that those people don't have constitutional rights.  That means you agree that if the government decides that *YOU* don't have any Rights, you are going to abide by that.  The problem you have is that if Rights come from government and not via a Creator then *YOU* don't have a Right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, or even Freedom of Religion.  You cannot own a firearm if the government decides that you shouldn't.  As a matter of* fact*, you don't have any Liberties given your rationale.
> 
> Either Rights come from a Creator (as per the Declaration of Independence) *OR* they are given by a God / government.  We don't get to have it both ways.  When a statute encroaches upon that principle, you are obligated to stand against it.  Today,* WITHOUT* a wall,  America is approaching statistical zero unemployment (which is generally defined as unemployment below 3 percent.)  My interest in the whole topic is that you cannot infringe upon their* Liberties* without infringing upon *mine* (as well as your own.)  Since the proposed solutions by your side will cost more than they can save AND they come at a price to *our fundamental Liberties*, what is the upside?
Click to expand...


Anyone not entering the country legally or who overstays their legal right to be here is breaking the law and therefore is a piece of shit criminal

This is where I part ways with the no borders libertarian types.

If you do not have borders you do not have a country.

Maybe someday in some yet to exist utopia you can get away with that but today in the real world you can't.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution applies to citizens of the US not those here illegally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wrong.*  The 14th Amendment, albeit illegally ratified provides:
> 
> "_All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*_."
> 
> I stated earlier in this thread that the build the wall - deport 'em all guys cannot understand the difference between the Rights of man and the privileges / benefits of citizenship.  And now they are proving it.
> 
> Notice in the 14th Amendment that a *person *born in the United States is a *citizen*  entitled to certain *privileges and immunities*.  The phrase *any person* is inclusive of all human beings.  Every human being whose feet hit U.S. soil are automatically entitled to Life, Liberty, Property AND Due Process.
> 
> But, again, in white supremacist parlance, those guys do not see the foreigners as even being human beings.  In their world, only a government / God can bestow upon you any _"rights_" and those "_rights_" are only given to citizens.  They can't be any more wrong on this even if they tried.
Click to expand...

You do understand that the part of the 14th you bolded is directed at the state and not the federal government, right? Illegals are limited in their constitutional protections, namely the 5th and 6th due process clauses and 14th Equal Protection clause of state laws.


----------



## Rambunctious

Dems need votes and they can't get them from upwardly mobile self starters...they need desperate sickly lazy uneducated duped unskilled people to vote for them and to instruct their offspring to continue to vote democrat...
It's sick and frankly treasonous...


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> People that come here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly *offered are not criminals.  The free market allows anybody to participate.  So, you'd rather crops rot in the field and a man's family go hungry and / or starve / die from disease than to take a job willingly offered?


The US is not a Free Market system, never has been. They are not coming here for jobs willingly offered, they are coming for their own economic gain.  None are dying from starvation in their home countries, nor from diseases, yet they are bringing diseases here that we have eradicated years ago.



Humorme said:


> You think that* Liberty* should be defined by a piece of paper from a tyrannical government?  And you call people a name like piece of shit criminal?  Would you worry about getting permission to work and earn some money to feed yourself and / or your spouse or children?  If that's your stance, most honest people would have a lower opinion of you than you do of undocumented immigrants.


Liberty doesn't allow one to enter into a sovereign nation without asking permission, do you really think you have the liberty to enter my house unannounced? They are not starving in their home countries. :SHRUG:



Humorme said:


> Speaking of criminality, do you mean to tell us you've never watched a pirated dvd or listened to a pirated cd?  You've never watched an illegally downloaded movie?  You've never broken the speed limit or made an improper U turn?  You've accurately reported every single nickel you've made to the IRS and you've always reported every gift, profit, or money made from any side job?  You've never taken a single thing... not even a rubber band from a previous employer?


:YAWN:



Humorme said:


> You've already said that those people don't have constitutional rights.  That means you agree that if the government decides that *YOU* don't have any Rights, you are going to abide by that.  The problem you have is that if Rights come from government and not via a Creator then *YOU* don't have a Right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, or even Freedom of Religion.  You cannot own a firearm if the government decides that you shouldn't.  As a matter of* fact*, you don't have any Liberties given your rationale.


All rights can be limited or taken, its the price of living in society. :SHRUG:



Humorme said:


> Either Rights come from a Creator (as per the Declaration of Independence) *OR* they are given by a God / government.  We don't get to have it both ways.  When a statute encroaches upon that principle, you are obligated to stand against it.  Today,* WITHOUT* a wall,  America is approaching statistical zero unemployment (which is generally defined as unemployment below 3 percent.)  My interest in the whole topic is that you cannot infringe upon their* Liberties* without infringing upon *mine* (as well as your own.)  Since the proposed solutions by your side will cost more than they can save AND they come at a price to *our fundamental Liberties*, what is the upside?


You haven't shown where immigration law infringes on any of your civil rights. You thinking they might doesn't constitute that they do or have. You seem to be making claims based on hyperbole. ymiknotsuprised


----------



## Humorme

Skull Pilot said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution applies to citizens of the US not those here illegally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wrong.*  The 14th Amendment, albeit illegally ratified provides:
> 
> "_All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*_."
> 
> I stated earlier in this thread that the build the wall - deport 'em all guys cannot understand the difference between the Rights of man and the privileges / benefits of citizenship.  And now they are proving it.
> 
> Notice in the 14th Amendment that a *person *born in the United States is a *citizen*  entitled to certain *privileges and immunities*.  The phrase *any person* is inclusive of all human beings.  Every human being whose feet hit U.S. soil are automatically entitled to Life, Liberty, Property AND Due Process.
> 
> But, again, in white supremacist parlance, those guys do not see the foreigners as even being human beings.  In their world, only a government / God can bestow upon you any _"rights_" and those "_rights_" are only given to citizens.  They can't be any more wrong on this even if they tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreigners are human it's just that the foreigners who break our immigration laws are piece of shit criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People that come here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly *offered are not criminals.  The free market allows anybody to participate.  So, you'd rather crops rot in the field and a man's family go hungry and / or starve / die from disease than to take a job willingly offered?
> 
> You think that* Liberty* should be defined by a piece of paper from a tyrannical government?  And you call people a name like piece of shit criminal?  Would you worry about getting permission to work and earn some money to feed yourself and / or your spouse or children?  If that's your stance, most honest people would have a lower opinion of you than you do of undocumented immigrants.
> 
> Speaking of criminality, do you mean to tell us you've never watched a pirated dvd or listened to a pirated cd?  You've never watched an illegally downloaded movie?  You've never broken the speed limit or made an improper U turn?  You've accurately reported every single nickel you've made to the IRS and you've always reported every gift, profit, or money made from any side job?  You've never taken a single thing... not even a rubber band from a previous employer?
> 
> You've already said that those people don't have constitutional rights.  That means you agree that if the government decides that *YOU* don't have any Rights, you are going to abide by that.  The problem you have is that if Rights come from government and not via a Creator then *YOU* don't have a Right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, or even Freedom of Religion.  You cannot own a firearm if the government decides that you shouldn't.  As a matter of* fact*, you don't have any Liberties given your rationale.
> 
> Either Rights come from a Creator (as per the Declaration of Independence) *OR* they are given by a God / government.  We don't get to have it both ways.  When a statute encroaches upon that principle, you are obligated to stand against it.  Today,* WITHOUT* a wall,  America is approaching statistical zero unemployment (which is generally defined as unemployment below 3 percent.)  My interest in the whole topic is that you cannot infringe upon their* Liberties* without infringing upon *mine* (as well as your own.)  Since the proposed solutions by your side will cost more than they can save AND they come at a price to *our fundamental Liberties*, what is the upside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone not entering the country legally or who overstays their legal right to be here is breaking the law and therefore is a piece of shit criminal
> 
> This is where I part ways with the no borders libertarian types.
> 
> If you do not have borders you do not have a country.
> 
> Maybe someday in some yet to exist utopia you can get away with that but today in the real world you can't.
Click to expand...


I noticed that you never responded to my questions.  

You have borders and you have a country.  An imaginary line over a geographic area does not define our country.  Rather, our country will be defined by its conviction to their faith and the principles upon which the Republic rests.

Most of your problems lies in the fact that the side you're on cannot differentiate or delineate between the privileges and immunities of citizenship and the Rights of man.   

By careful deflection and refusal to answer my questions, you said more with silence than I could have said with a wall of text.


----------



## Humorme

Rambunctious said:


> Dems need votes and they can't get them from upwardly mobile self starters...they need desperate sickly lazy uneducated duped unskilled people to vote for them and to instruct their offspring to continue to vote democrat...
> It's sick and frankly treasonous...



You just made a good argument for not forcing every person who washes up on our shores to become a citizen.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> I noticed that you never responded to my questions.
> 
> You have borders and you have a country.  An imaginary line over a geographic area does not define our country.  Rather, our country will be defined by its conviction to their faith and the principles upon which the Republic rests.


Our Republic doesn't rest upon your perceived faith. And, yes, geographic lines do define countries. SMFH



Humorme said:


> Most of your problems lies in the fact that the side you're on cannot differentiate or delineate between the privileges and immunities of citizenship and the Rights of man.
> 
> By careful deflection and refusal to answer my questions, you said more with silence than I could have said with a wall of text.


No man has a right to enter another country without its authorization. SHRUG


----------



## Wry Catcher

JoeMoma said:


> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!



Q.  How should illegal immigration be controlled

A.  By these steps:

Judicially
Fairly
With compassion
Win-Win
A.  And not by:

Hate and fear mongering
Demagoguery
Zero Sum Game


----------



## Wry Catcher

Liquid Reigns said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that you never responded to my questions.
> 
> You have borders and you have a country.  An imaginary line over a geographic area does not define our country.  Rather, our country will be defined by its conviction to their faith and the principles upon which the Republic rests.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Republic doesn't rest upon your perceived faith. And, yes, geographic lines do define countries. SMFH
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of your problems lies in the fact that the side you're on cannot differentiate or delineate between the privileges and immunities of citizenship and the Rights of man.
> 
> By careful deflection and refusal to answer my questions, you said more with silence than I could have said with a wall of text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No man has a right to enter another country without its authorization. SHRUG
Click to expand...


Did Bush II, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocons know this when they invaded and occupied Iraq?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Wry Catcher said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that you never responded to my questions.
> 
> You have borders and you have a country.  An imaginary line over a geographic area does not define our country.  Rather, our country will be defined by its conviction to their faith and the principles upon which the Republic rests.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Republic doesn't rest upon your perceived faith. And, yes, geographic lines do define countries. SMFH
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of your problems lies in the fact that the side you're on cannot differentiate or delineate between the privileges and immunities of citizenship and the Rights of man.
> 
> By careful deflection and refusal to answer my questions, you said more with silence than I could have said with a wall of text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No man has a right to enter another country without its authorization. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Bush II, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocons know this when they invaded and occupied Iraq?
Click to expand...

You'll have to ask Congress about their ability to grant military action, since they allowed it.

Should we grant military action against the invaders crossing our southern border?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Humorme said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution applies to citizens of the US not those here illegally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wrong.*  The 14th Amendment, albeit illegally ratified provides:
> 
> "_All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*_."
> 
> I stated earlier in this thread that the build the wall - deport 'em all guys cannot understand the difference between the Rights of man and the privileges / benefits of citizenship.  And now they are proving it.
> 
> Notice in the 14th Amendment that a *person *born in the United States is a *citizen*  entitled to certain *privileges and immunities*.  The phrase *any person* is inclusive of all human beings.  Every human being whose feet hit U.S. soil are automatically entitled to Life, Liberty, Property AND Due Process.
> 
> But, again, in white supremacist parlance, those guys do not see the foreigners as even being human beings.  In their world, only a government / God can bestow upon you any _"rights_" and those "_rights_" are only given to citizens.  They can't be any more wrong on this even if they tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreigners are human it's just that the foreigners who break our immigration laws are piece of shit criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People that come here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly *offered are not criminals.  The free market allows anybody to participate.  So, you'd rather crops rot in the field and a man's family go hungry and / or starve / die from disease than to take a job willingly offered?
> 
> You think that* Liberty* should be defined by a piece of paper from a tyrannical government?  And you call people a name like piece of shit criminal?  Would you worry about getting permission to work and earn some money to feed yourself and / or your spouse or children?  If that's your stance, most honest people would have a lower opinion of you than you do of undocumented immigrants.
> 
> Speaking of criminality, do you mean to tell us you've never watched a pirated dvd or listened to a pirated cd?  You've never watched an illegally downloaded movie?  You've never broken the speed limit or made an improper U turn?  You've accurately reported every single nickel you've made to the IRS and you've always reported every gift, profit, or money made from any side job?  You've never taken a single thing... not even a rubber band from a previous employer?
> 
> You've already said that those people don't have constitutional rights.  That means you agree that if the government decides that *YOU* don't have any Rights, you are going to abide by that.  The problem you have is that if Rights come from government and not via a Creator then *YOU* don't have a Right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, or even Freedom of Religion.  You cannot own a firearm if the government decides that you shouldn't.  As a matter of* fact*, you don't have any Liberties given your rationale.
> 
> Either Rights come from a Creator (as per the Declaration of Independence) *OR* they are given by a God / government.  We don't get to have it both ways.  When a statute encroaches upon that principle, you are obligated to stand against it.  Today,* WITHOUT* a wall,  America is approaching statistical zero unemployment (which is generally defined as unemployment below 3 percent.)  My interest in the whole topic is that you cannot infringe upon their* Liberties* without infringing upon *mine* (as well as your own.)  Since the proposed solutions by your side will cost more than they can save AND they come at a price to *our fundamental Liberties*, what is the upside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone not entering the country legally or who overstays their legal right to be here is breaking the law and therefore is a piece of shit criminal
> 
> This is where I part ways with the no borders libertarian types.
> 
> If you do not have borders you do not have a country.
> 
> Maybe someday in some yet to exist utopia you can get away with that but today in the real world you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed that you never responded to my questions.
> 
> You have borders and you have a country.  An imaginary line over a geographic area does not define our country.  Rather, our country will be defined by its conviction to their faith and the principles upon which the Republic rests.
> 
> Most of your problems lies in the fact that the side you're on cannot differentiate or delineate between the privileges and immunities of citizenship and the Rights of man.
> 
> By careful deflection and refusal to answer my questions, you said more with silence than I could have said with a wall of text.
Click to expand...


I am not on any side.

And yes an area delineated by coordinates and the body of laws that exist within the boundaries of those coordinates define a country.

Thinking otherwise is Utopian fantasy.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q.  How should illegal immigration be controlled
> 
> A.  By these steps:
> 
> Judicially
> Fairly
> With compassion
> Win-Win
> A.  And not by:
> 
> Hate and fear mongering
> Demagoguery
> Zero Sum Game
Click to expand...


Win win

That phrase makes me


----------



## Wry Catcher

Skull Pilot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q.  How should illegal immigration be controlled
> 
> A.  By these steps:
> 
> Judicially
> Fairly
> With compassion
> Win-Win
> A.  And not by:
> 
> Hate and fear mongering
> Demagoguery
> Zero Sum Game
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Win win
> 
> That phrase makes me
Click to expand...

Probably because you are such a loser.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Liquid Reigns said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that you never responded to my questions.
> 
> You have borders and you have a country.  An imaginary line over a geographic area does not define our country.  Rather, our country will be defined by its conviction to their faith and the principles upon which the Republic rests.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Republic doesn't rest upon your perceived faith. And, yes, geographic lines do define countries. SMFH
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of your problems lies in the fact that the side you're on cannot differentiate or delineate between the privileges and immunities of citizenship and the Rights of man.
> 
> By careful deflection and refusal to answer my questions, you said more with silence than I could have said with a wall of text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No man has a right to enter another country without its authorization. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Bush II, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocons know this when they invaded and occupied Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll have to ask Congress about their ability to grant military action, since they allowed it.
> 
> Should we grant military action against the invaders crossing our southern border?
Click to expand...


Really?  That's your response (spin) to my response to your statement, to wit: 
"No man has a right to enter another country without its authorization."

In response to:  "Should we grant military action against the invaders crossing our southern border"

If and only if the invader is functioning as a military unit of another nation, or sedition by American citizens, then the War Powers Resolution Would be the immediate response.

[_The president must consult with Congress whenever possible prior to using military force; withdraw forces after 60 days unless extension/deceleration of war by Congress_]


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Wry Catcher said:


> Really?  That's your response (spin) to my response to your statement, to wit:
> "No man has a right to enter another country without its authorization."


Yep, that's my response. By what right or law does an illegal have to enter this country?



Wry Catcher said:


> In response to:  "Should we grant military action against the invaders crossing our southern border"


Does Congress and the President have powers regarding foreign relations granted via the US Constitution?



Wry Catcher said:


> If and only if the invader is functioning as a military unit of another nation, or sedition by American citizens, then the War Powers Resolution Would be the immediate response.


Fine, then lets use the Foreign Relations powers of Congress, which deems illegal entry into the US as a crime.



Wry Catcher said:


> [_The president must consult with Congress whenever possible prior to using military force; withdraw forces after 60 days unless extension/deceleration of war by Congress_]


Did Congress not grant military action to Bush, and did not Obama continue it?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Liquid Reigns said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  That's your response (spin) to my response to your statement, to wit:
> "No man has a right to enter another country without its authorization."
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's my response. By what right or law does an illegal have to enter this country?
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> In response to:  "Should we grant military action against the invaders crossing our southern border"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does Congress and the President have powers regarding foreign relations granted via the US Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If and only if the invader is functioning as a military unit of another nation, or sedition by American citizens, then the War Powers Resolution Would be the immediate response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, then lets use the Foreign Relations powers of Congress, which deems illegal entry into the US as a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [_The president must consult with Congress whenever possible prior to using military force; withdraw forces after 60 days unless extension/deceleration of war by Congress_]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Congress not grant military action to Bush, and did not Obama continue it?
Click to expand...


True, but for different reasons.  The neocons wanted Iraq's oil, liberal Democrats wants peace and less Americans coming home in body bags.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Wry Catcher said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  That's your response (spin) to my response to your statement, to wit:
> "No man has a right to enter another country without its authorization."
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's my response. By what right or law does an illegal have to enter this country?
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> In response to:  "Should we grant military action against the invaders crossing our southern border"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does Congress and the President have powers regarding foreign relations granted via the US Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If and only if the invader is functioning as a military unit of another nation, or sedition by American citizens, then the War Powers Resolution Would be the immediate response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, then lets use the Foreign Relations powers of Congress, which deems illegal entry into the US as a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [_The president must consult with Congress whenever possible prior to using military force; withdraw forces after 60 days unless extension/deceleration of war by Congress_]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Congress not grant military action to Bush, and did not Obama continue it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but for different reasons.  The neocons wanted Iraq's oil, liberal Democrats wants peace and less Americans coming home in body bags.
Click to expand...

I don't think either party wants Americans coming home in body bags. 

What oil did the neo-cons get? our oil prices went up after the invasion and through Obamas first term.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q.  How should illegal immigration be controlled
> 
> A.  By these steps:
> 
> Judicially
> Fairly
> With compassion
> Win-Win
> A.  And not by:
> 
> Hate and fear mongering
> Demagoguery
> Zero Sum Game
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Win win
> 
> That phrase makes me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably because you are such a loser.
Click to expand...

No it's because it's a hackneyed bit of tripe


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution applies to citizens of the US not those here illegally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wrong.*  The 14th Amendment, albeit illegally ratified provides:
> 
> "_All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*_."
> 
> I stated earlier in this thread that the build the wall - deport 'em all guys cannot understand the difference between the Rights of man and the privileges / benefits of citizenship.  And now they are proving it.
> 
> Notice in the 14th Amendment that a *person *born in the United States is a *citizen*  entitled to certain *privileges and immunities*.  The phrase *any person* is inclusive of all human beings.  Every human being whose feet hit U.S. soil are automatically entitled to Life, Liberty, Property AND Due Process.
> 
> But, again, in white supremacist parlance, those guys do not see the foreigners as even being human beings.  In their world, only a government / God can bestow upon you any _"rights_" and those "_rights_" are only given to citizens.  They can't be any more wrong on this even if they tried.
Click to expand...

The right wing only cares about natural rights when it is about guns.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution applies to citizens of the US not those here illegally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wrong.*  The 14th Amendment, albeit illegally ratified provides:
> 
> "_All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*_."
> 
> I stated earlier in this thread that the build the wall - deport 'em all guys cannot understand the difference between the Rights of man and the privileges / benefits of citizenship.  And now they are proving it.
> 
> Notice in the 14th Amendment that a *person *born in the United States is a *citizen*  entitled to certain *privileges and immunities*.  The phrase *any person* is inclusive of all human beings.  Every human being whose feet hit U.S. soil are automatically entitled to Life, Liberty, Property AND Due Process.
> 
> But, again, in white supremacist parlance, those guys do not see the foreigners as even being human beings.  In their world, only a government / God can bestow upon you any _"rights_" and those "_rights_" are only given to citizens.  They can't be any more wrong on this even if they tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing only cares about natural rights when it is about guns.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't have a clue danielpalos.  How many times have you read my posts wherein I take on the right wing racists that do not want to acknowledge God given *unalienable* Rights?  How many times have you personally been on a thread where all manner of B.S. was being aimed my direction?

I have my own view about the world.  Your fantasy fight with the right don't have squat to do with me.  I'm not about right v. left.  I'm about right v. wrong.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Liquid Reigns said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  That's your response (spin) to my response to your statement, to wit:
> "No man has a right to enter another country without its authorization."
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's my response. By what right or law does an illegal have to enter this country?
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> In response to:  "Should we grant military action against the invaders crossing our southern border"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does Congress and the President have powers regarding foreign relations granted via the US Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If and only if the invader is functioning as a military unit of another nation, or sedition by American citizens, then the War Powers Resolution Would be the immediate response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, then lets use the Foreign Relations powers of Congress, which deems illegal entry into the US as a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [_The president must consult with Congress whenever possible prior to using military force; withdraw forces after 60 days unless extension/deceleration of war by Congress_]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Congress not grant military action to Bush, and did not Obama continue it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but for different reasons.  The neocons wanted Iraq's oil, liberal Democrats wants peace and less Americans coming home in body bags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think either party wants Americans coming home in body bags.
> 
> What oil did the neo-cons get? our oil prices went up after the invasion and through Obamas first term.
Click to expand...


No one wants body bags, and I didn't suggest neocons did.  It was a consequences of the occupation of Iraq, an occupation they believed would have been peaceful and allowed oil companies to prosper.

Iraq was only one example of the Republican Party's ambition to secure more and more profit without considering long term effects on people, the environment and world peace.

See:  Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation

It is a most thoughtful and thought provoking speech, and something Trump ought to consider every morning before he tweets or opens his mouth to speak.

Read it, and consider it, for in these times it is the most powerful indictment of Trumps failure to comprehend the job he coveted and why he is unfit and incompetent to hold the job of POTUS.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Skull Pilot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q.  How should illegal immigration be controlled
> 
> A.  By these steps:
> 
> Judicially
> Fairly
> With compassion
> Win-Win
> A.  And not by:
> 
> Hate and fear mongering
> Demagoguery
> Zero Sum Game
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Win win
> 
> That phrase makes me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably because you are such a loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's because it's a hackneyed bit of tripe
Click to expand...


And yet you cannot offer a rebuttal, and thus mock these truths rather than provide examples why:

 you believe each of the bullet points are irrelevant
why the first four are not effective policies
why you deny the last three exacerbate the issues.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wishes to shred the US Constitution & institute a Police State to kill, arrest or remove undesirables, build a wall & put the country on lock down.
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution applies to citizens of the US not those here illegally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wrong.*  The 14th Amendment, albeit illegally ratified provides:
> 
> "_All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*_."
> 
> I stated earlier in this thread that the build the wall - deport 'em all guys cannot understand the difference between the Rights of man and the privileges / benefits of citizenship.  And now they are proving it.
> 
> Notice in the 14th Amendment that a *person *born in the United States is a *citizen*  entitled to certain *privileges and immunities*.  The phrase *any person* is inclusive of all human beings.  Every human being whose feet hit U.S. soil are automatically entitled to Life, Liberty, Property AND Due Process.
> 
> But, again, in white supremacist parlance, those guys do not see the foreigners as even being human beings.  In their world, only a government / God can bestow upon you any _"rights_" and those "_rights_" are only given to citizens.  They can't be any more wrong on this even if they tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing only cares about natural rights when it is about guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't have a clue danielpalos.  How many times have you read my posts wherein I take on the right wing racists that do not want to acknowledge God given *unalienable* Rights?  How many times have you personally been on a thread where all manner of B.S. was being aimed my direction?
> 
> I have my own view about the world.  Your fantasy fight with the right don't have squat to do with me.  I'm not about right v. left.  I'm about right v. wrong.
Click to expand...

Bearing True Witness to our supreme law of the land is moral, and Good, and right.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q.  How should illegal immigration be controlled
> 
> A.  By these steps:
> 
> Judicially
> Fairly
> With compassion
> Win-Win
> A.  And not by:
> 
> Hate and fear mongering
> Demagoguery
> Zero Sum Game
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Win win
> 
> That phrase makes me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably because you are such a loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's because it's a hackneyed bit of tripe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you cannot offer a rebuttal, and thus mock these truths rather than provide examples why:
> 
> you believe each of the bullet points are irrelevant
> why the first four are not effective policies
> why you deny the last three exacerbate the issues.
Click to expand...


Truths?

You did nothing but offer a version of a false dichotomy.


----------



## danielpalos

A visa that is more market friendly can generate revenue and ensure Commerce is lawful within the Union. 

Not everyone is looking to immigrate merely engage in tourism. 

Being able to obtain a work authorization could be more market friendly, for a fee.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Skull Pilot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q.  How should illegal immigration be controlled
> 
> A.  By these steps:
> 
> Judicially
> Fairly
> With compassion
> Win-Win
> A.  And not by:
> 
> Hate and fear mongering
> Demagoguery
> Zero Sum Game
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Win win
> 
> That phrase makes me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably because you are such a loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's because it's a hackneyed bit of tripe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you cannot offer a rebuttal, and thus mock these truths rather than provide examples why:
> 
> you believe each of the bullet points are irrelevant
> why the first four are not effective policies
> why you deny the last three exacerbate the issues.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truths?
> 
> You did nothing but offer a version of a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...


LOL


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85% of our crops will rot in the field without illegally migrant workers. They deserve sanctuary in all 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure where got the 50% but I know farmers that owns very large farms in Delano, Bakersfield and Arizona area and most or all are Illegals. Some has green cards but they are all Hispanics.
> Machine operators are also illegals.
> 
> Wages rise on California farms. Americans still don't want the job
> 
> To keep crops from rotting in the field, farmers say they need Trump to let in more temporary workers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well which is it, most or all are illegals, yet some have green cards? I'll bet some are even US Citizens. SMFH So what if they are all Hispanic in Southern CA and AZ. PEW research gave the % number, its easy enough to look up.
> 
> As to your second link, the farmers need to use the tools they have allowed for them, namely the H2A visa, they choose not to use it. If they don't like it then they need to lobby to get it changed, but until it is they are stuck with using it, or take the chance at being caught if they knowingly hire illegals.
Click to expand...


Incorrect. Some has green cards that’s been here for decades but the percentage is extremely very low. The % you are talking about doesn’t reflect the reality. Farmers don’t have much choices but use the available labor they have for several decades.
H2A visa is more expensive than using the illegals because you have to corral them making sure they don’t escape, provide food and housing and some forms of clothing. Why bother when you can hire existing people? 
Some of these H2A people coming from Asia don’t even show up to their assigned sponsors. They just disappear from the airport. 

A long time ago maybe 10 years or so kids in my neighborhood cuts grass, clean pools and wash cars etc. Today not a single one of these kids can be seen except Mexicans just like my gardener for 5 years. I pay him $145 a month to maintain my lawn 3 times a month no more than 45 minutes each time. Even if we as a whole want to hire Americans. Where are they? 

I know several people that own home care where they converted their houses to take care old people here in Ca, Ar, and Hawaii. No a single white or black Americans but ONLY Mexicans or Asians are available making from $12 to $18/hour with overtime.


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i posted several times here. I know tons of businesses and business owners and farmers. These where I based my facts and opinions when it come to this topic.
> 
> The economy is booming. Without these illegals the economy will not be this good especially here in California the 6th largest economy of the world. That’s a fact.
> 
> California Crops Rot as Immigration Crackdown Creates Farmworker Shortage
> 
> 
> 
> The farmers have brought it on themselves if they are not using the H2A visa as there is no limit on the amount of workers they can bring in.
> 
> Your opinion is not factual and basing what you claim as facts on the few people you know isn't a large enough pool to make a claim on.
> 
> So lets look at your link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unclear exactly how widespread the labor shortage is for farmers throughout the country, which would have a bigger impact on prices consumers pay. Ultimately, drought and flooding have a more significant impact on farms. Low oil prices could also offset any impact of the worker shortage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Its unclear how widespread the labor shortage is? Drought and flooding have a bigger impact? Oil prices can offset worker shortages?
> 
> Looks like opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I suggest you don't claim opinion as fact as it always comes back to bite you.
Click to expand...


Your opinion is based from what you read. My opinion is based from reality and experience with real farmers and business owners. I already explained myself how dumb is H2A program is.


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85% of our crops will rot in the field without illegally migrant workers. They deserve sanctuary in all 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to include packing houses, slaughter houses (feed market), and restaurants. Without all these illegal workers, our economy will take a nose dive. The farmers will only be able to salvage about 15% of their crop.
> 
> Look what happened in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, the slaughter houses had people lined up to work there when Bush raided them and got rid of all the illegal workers. Restaurants would lose buss boys, but guess what, young 16 - 20 year old's would take those jobs.
> 
> Those days without an illegal 10 or so years ago blew up in their faces. Our economy wouldn't notice them being gone.  Farmers would lose some, it wouldn't be an 85% loss, at best a 20% loss.
> 
> Alabama? some farmers claiming losses, yet produce costs did not change nor were there produce shortages in the markets. gofigure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That’s funny. There are slaughterhouse here and I don’t see anyone but Hispanics.
> Oh yes guarantee you 100% they will be missed if those illegals are gone.
> I don’t see 16 or even 25 yo white boys or girls working in restaurants as buss boys here. They don’t even work at McDonald’s. Kids are not the same like it used to be. Get that straight.
> 
> Did you research what happened in Alabama?
> 
> Where are you getting your opinions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are you assuming because they are Hispanics then they are also illegals? Sure seems you are associating there heritage to them being illegally here. SMFH
> 
> Up here in Northern California white boys and girls are working as bus boys and dishwashers in local restaurants. I have 2 McDonalds within 2 miles of where I live, the people working in them have every color of skin tone one could imagine, and they all speak English without accents. :SHRUG:
> 
> Maybe you should actually research the subject verse reading headlines and basing your opinion off things you don't seem to adept at truly knowing.
Click to expand...


LOL. I’m not assuming anything because of their looks. I talked to my friends that are business owners from different categories just about everything. From how much they get paid, who work harder Mexicans or Salvadorians or Guatemalans or where they live etc etc. 

I know several McDonald’s owners and restaurants. Do you mind telling me where that McDonald’s in northern Ca you are telling me? I know some of them in that locations. 
Kids now are so different now compared from a long time ago.


----------



## charwin95

Let me explain again what I really do for a living in last 28 years before I took over the business from my parents.
I’m in the medical industry business. Part of my business is to service hospitals all over the country. I have employees as Field Service Technicians that service assigned territories. If I need information about titi bars, good or bad restaurants, housings, cost of living, foods, rentals, city conditions, elected officials etc etc etc. I can find that out easily. 
I know ton and tons of business owners from different kinds of categories from naked bar, buildings, casinos, hospitals, restaurants, farmers, instrument manufacturers, registry engineer or RN etc.etc. etc. 


On the side I really want to get back with Humorme about the Kaiser Hospital in Duluth where he claimed that only fewer than 15% are white doctors. But moderator close the thread before I can respond.


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i posted several times here. I know tons of businesses and business owners and farmers. These where I based my facts and opinions when it come to this topic.
> 
> The economy is booming. Without these illegals the economy will not be this good especially here in California the 6th largest economy of the world. That’s a fact.
> 
> California Crops Rot as Immigration Crackdown Creates Farmworker Shortage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Georgia has had the same problem for years:
> 
> Georgia's Harsh Immigration Law Costs Millions in Unharvested Crops
> 
> Migrant workers still in need
> 
> "_Crops went untended as the season's harvest began, and more than $1 million a day vanished as the human-fueled agricultural harvest machine of migrant labor in the United States stalled_."
> 
> Ben Carson's Immigrant Visa Idea Favored By Farmers As Nation's Crops Rot
> 
> It's been an issue in Alabama for years as well and some say this is a problem nationwide (and has been for as long as the crackdowns have been going on):
> 
> Alabama Illegal Immigrant Crackdown Destroys Farm Business
> 
> Crops rot while Trump-led immigration backlash idles farm work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they used the H2A visa, then there would be no problems for them, they would have all the labor they need since there are no annual caps for the H2A nor is there a limit to how many a single farmer can bring in.
Click to expand...


1. Illegals are here and they need to work instead of relying from welfare. Why is that so bad? 
2. If it’s easier and cost effective to hire H2A don’t you think all of them could have done that? 

Your opinion does not reflect the reality.


----------



## Humorme

charwin95 said:


> Let me explain again what I really do for a living in last 28 years before I took over the business from my parents.
> I’m in the medical industry business. Part of my business is to service hospitals all over the country. I have employees as Field Service Technicians that service assigned territories. If I need information about titi bars, good or bad restaurants, housings, cost of living, foods, rentals, city conditions, elected officials etc etc etc. I can find that out easily.
> I know ton and tons of business owners from different kinds of categories from naked bar, buildings, casinos, hospitals, restaurants, farmers, instrument manufacturers, registry engineer or RN etc.etc. etc.
> 
> 
> On the side I really want to get back with Humorme about the Kaiser Hospital in Duluth where he claimed that only fewer than 15% are white doctors. But moderator close the thread before I can respond.



If it helps, PM me.  I can refer you to somewhere that you can discuss this privately.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85% of our crops will rot in the field without illegally migrant workers. They deserve sanctuary in all 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure where got the 50% but I know farmers that owns very large farms in Delano, Bakersfield and Arizona area and most or all are Illegals. Some has green cards but they are all Hispanics.
> Machine operators are also illegals.
> 
> Wages rise on California farms. Americans still don't want the job
> 
> To keep crops from rotting in the field, farmers say they need Trump to let in more temporary workers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well which is it, most or all are illegals, yet some have green cards? I'll bet some are even US Citizens. SMFH So what if they are all Hispanic in Southern CA and AZ. PEW research gave the % number, its easy enough to look up.
> 
> As to your second link, the farmers need to use the tools they have allowed for them, namely the H2A visa, they choose not to use it. If they don't like it then they need to lobby to get it changed, but until it is they are stuck with using it, or take the chance at being caught if they knowingly hire illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect. Some has green cards that’s been here for decades but the percentage is extremely very low. The % you are talking about doesn’t reflect the reality. Farmers don’t have much choices but use the available labor they have for several decades.
> H2A visa is more expensive than using the illegals because you have to corral them making sure they don’t escape, provide food and housing and some forms of clothing. Why bother when you can hire existing people?
> Some of these H2A people coming from Asia don’t even show up to their assigned sponsors. They just disappear from the airport.
> 
> A long time ago maybe 10 years or so kids in my neighborhood cuts grass, clean pools and wash cars etc. Today not a single one of these kids can be seen except Mexicans just like my gardener for 5 years. I pay him $145 a month to maintain my lawn 3 times a month no more than 45 minutes each time. Even if we as a whole want to hire Americans. Where are they?
> 
> I know several people that own home care where they converted their houses to take care old people here in Ca, Ar, and Hawaii. No a single white or black Americans but ONLY Mexicans or Asians are available making from $12 to $18/hour with overtime.
Click to expand...

Incorrect? Yet you post no link for your support as to percentages, just your opinion based non-sense. 





> Most illegals do not work in agriculture — only about 4 percent of the illegal-immigrant population is employed in farming. In no state is farming the predominant occupation of illegal immigrants; even in places such as California, where labor-intensive fruit-and-vegetable farming attracts a relatively large illegal workforce, the main occupations of illegals are in hospitality (restaurants and hotels), services, and transportation. Likewise, most of the people working in agriculture are not illegals: *The great majority of the farming workforce is composed of legal workers,* with *illegals constituting about one-fourth of the total.* Illegals make up a larger share of the farm workforce than they do any other labor pool, but they remain a small though not inconsequential minority of workers.
> 
> Read more at: The Specter of the $20 Avocado


Legal workers includes, H2A workers, LPR's, and citizens. SMFH

How about this from PEW





> Although they were 5% of the overall workforce in 2012, unauthorized immigrants represent a notably higher share of workers in some industries where they are concentrated. *They were 16% of employees in the agriculture industry*, 12% of employees in the construction industry and 9% of employees in the leisure and hospitality industry.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrants are particularly concentrated in some subsets of each major industry. In 2012, they represented 24% of workers in the landscaping industry, 23% of those in private household employment, 20% of those in apparel manufacturing, 20% in crop production, 19% in the dry cleaning and laundry industry and 19% of those in building maintenance.
> 
> 
> Chapter 2: Industries of Unauthorized Immigrant Workers


Again, like I previously stated, they are not a majority workforce in any industry in the US. 

Where I live the lawn care guys are all white with the exception of the commercial landscapers that do the city contracts. As for in home health care, I see Asians predominantly, whites and blacks. House cleaning services I see both Hispanic and White, in fact I have a white US Citizen that comes and cleans my house weekly. SHRUG

Just because you see something in specific areas doesn't mean it is that way everywhere.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i posted several times here. I know tons of businesses and business owners and farmers. These where I based my facts and opinions when it come to this topic.
> 
> The economy is booming. Without these illegals the economy will not be this good especially here in California the 6th largest economy of the world. That’s a fact.
> 
> California Crops Rot as Immigration Crackdown Creates Farmworker Shortage
> 
> 
> 
> The farmers have brought it on themselves if they are not using the H2A visa as there is no limit on the amount of workers they can bring in.
> 
> Your opinion is not factual and basing what you claim as facts on the few people you know isn't a large enough pool to make a claim on.
> 
> So lets look at your link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unclear exactly how widespread the labor shortage is for farmers throughout the country, which would have a bigger impact on prices consumers pay. Ultimately, drought and flooding have a more significant impact on farms. Low oil prices could also offset any impact of the worker shortage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Its unclear how widespread the labor shortage is? Drought and flooding have a bigger impact? Oil prices can offset worker shortages?
> 
> Looks like opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I suggest you don't claim opinion as fact as it always comes back to bite you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion is based from what you read. My opinion is based from reality and experience with real farmers and business owners. I already explained myself how dumb is H2A program is.
Click to expand...

LMFAO What you think and what you see is based on you perceived notions in specific areas. Your opinion is based on your very limited circle of friends. 

Whether you think the H2A is stupid or not has no bearing, it is there for the specific purpose of farmers to use, and if they fail to use it then it is there failure and nobody else's. I am a business owner in the Landscape industry and I have no problem getting white/black guys who all have legal documents (as I use E-verify) to work for me. SHRUG


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to include packing houses, slaughter houses (feed market), and restaurants. Without all these illegal workers, our economy will take a nose dive. The farmers will only be able to salvage about 15% of their crop.
> 
> Look what happened in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, the slaughter houses had people lined up to work there when Bush raided them and got rid of all the illegal workers. Restaurants would lose buss boys, but guess what, young 16 - 20 year old's would take those jobs.
> 
> Those days without an illegal 10 or so years ago blew up in their faces. Our economy wouldn't notice them being gone.  Farmers would lose some, it wouldn't be an 85% loss, at best a 20% loss.
> 
> Alabama? some farmers claiming losses, yet produce costs did not change nor were there produce shortages in the markets. gofigure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That’s funny. There are slaughterhouse here and I don’t see anyone but Hispanics.
> Oh yes guarantee you 100% they will be missed if those illegals are gone.
> I don’t see 16 or even 25 yo white boys or girls working in restaurants as buss boys here. They don’t even work at McDonald’s. Kids are not the same like it used to be. Get that straight.
> 
> Did you research what happened in Alabama?
> 
> Where are you getting your opinions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are you assuming because they are Hispanics then they are also illegals? Sure seems you are associating there heritage to them being illegally here. SMFH
> 
> Up here in Northern California white boys and girls are working as bus boys and dishwashers in local restaurants. I have 2 McDonalds within 2 miles of where I live, the people working in them have every color of skin tone one could imagine, and they all speak English without accents. :SHRUG:
> 
> Maybe you should actually research the subject verse reading headlines and basing your opinion off things you don't seem to adept at truly knowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. I’m not assuming anything because of their looks. I talked to my friends that are business owners from different categories just about everything. From how much they get paid, who work harder Mexicans or Salvadorians or Guatemalans or where they live etc etc.
> 
> I know several McDonald’s owners and restaurants. Do you mind telling me where that McDonald’s in northern Ca you are telling me? I know some of them in that locations.
> Kids now are so different now compared from a long time ago.
Click to expand...

Sure you are, your claims are based on your limited sample, the few people you know. Hell I have kids in high school and out of high school that send me resumes for jobs they want, at least 3 a week. With the equipment I use and my insurance requirements I am limited who I can hire. There are 2 McDonalds along Highway 65 between Rocklin/Roseville and Sheridan, both have high school kids of all colors working in them, so does the Taco Bell, Jack in the Box, Burger King, Subway, Togos, Red Robin, Panda Express, Carls Jr, etc.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i posted several times here. I know tons of businesses and business owners and farmers. These where I based my facts and opinions when it come to this topic.
> 
> The economy is booming. Without these illegals the economy will not be this good especially here in California the 6th largest economy of the world. That’s a fact.
> 
> California Crops Rot as Immigration Crackdown Creates Farmworker Shortage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Georgia has had the same problem for years:
> 
> Georgia's Harsh Immigration Law Costs Millions in Unharvested Crops
> 
> Migrant workers still in need
> 
> "_Crops went untended as the season's harvest began, and more than $1 million a day vanished as the human-fueled agricultural harvest machine of migrant labor in the United States stalled_."
> 
> Ben Carson's Immigrant Visa Idea Favored By Farmers As Nation's Crops Rot
> 
> It's been an issue in Alabama for years as well and some say this is a problem nationwide (and has been for as long as the crackdowns have been going on):
> 
> Alabama Illegal Immigrant Crackdown Destroys Farm Business
> 
> Crops rot while Trump-led immigration backlash idles farm work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they used the H2A visa, then there would be no problems for them, they would have all the labor they need since there are no annual caps for the H2A nor is there a limit to how many a single farmer can bring in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Illegals are here and they need to work instead of relying from welfare. Why is that so bad?
> 2. If it’s easier and cost effective to hire H2A don’t you think all of them could have done that?
> 
> Your opinion does not reflect the reality.
Click to expand...

1) Illegals are here, and they need to be removed. Then we don't have to worry about if they are or not receiving welfare or tax refunds they aren't entitled to via the ITIN they file with.

2)Doesn't matter if its easier or cost effective, it is what is at their disposal they refuse to use. Maybe they should mechanize and they won't have to deal with field labor ever again. SHRUG

My opinion does reflect reality, as I showed, your limited samples don't represent anything outside of your limited samples. Do you really think there are illegals working in naked/titi bars and hospitals? SMFH


----------



## charwin95

charwin95 said:


> Let me explain again what I really do for a living in last 28 years before I took over the business from my parents.
> I’m in the medical industry business. Part of my business is to service hospitals all over the country. I have employees as Field Service Technicians that service assigned territories. If I need information about titi bars, good or bad restaurants, housings, cost of living, foods, rentals, city conditions, elected officials etc etc etc. I can find that out easily.
> I know ton and tons of business owners from different kinds of categories from naked bar, buildings, casinos, hospitals, restaurants, farmers, instrument manufacturers, registry engineer or RN etc.etc. etc.
> 
> 
> On the side I really want to get back with Humorme about the Kaiser Hospital in Duluth where he claimed that only fewer than 15% are white doctors. But moderator close the thread before I can respond.



Forgot to mention. I also know a porno business owner. The reason I just remember this because of his house in Montecito, Ca that got flooded last Sunday cost $8.1 millions & 4 cars total lost, just moved in late this year. His house was just shown in local news here. I’ve been to that house last October and ate dinner with him last night in his other house in Beverly Hills. 

Read this link. This is the owner of Kim Kardashian’s porno video. I know how much percentage Kim K. getting every month. I also know how much are these female porno or male actress are getting paid. 
If you asked me........ Have I seen live actual porno actions? Yes several times and it was quite an interesting experience. You will be shocked how low they are getting paid, who & where these beautiful women came from. Sad story. Now I can say these are predominantly white women, white male and black male. LOL Asians are not complaining. 

Most successful porno actress which regards to how much $ she got paid was Jana Jameson. But this business has so much competition that brought the prices down tremendously. LOL you cannot blame the illegals for driving the cost down. 

It was Bruce Jenner who made K. Kardashian’s video successful that made her very rich and famous. That was a very good and smart business move. During the height of that video Kim K was getting an average of $10 millions a month now it’s down to less than $1 million a month. 

The dumbest one was Pamela Anderson & her husband then Tommy Lee stolen porno video. 
The whole world will see it anyway whether she likes it or not. So why not just let it go and make money just like Kim K. She end up getting nothing.  

Donald Trump's Labor Nominee Sells His Mansion To Porn Mogul For $8 Million


----------



## Humorme

charwin95 said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain again what I really do for a living in last 28 years before I took over the business from my parents.
> I’m in the medical industry business. Part of my business is to service hospitals all over the country. I have employees as Field Service Technicians that service assigned territories. If I need information about titi bars, good or bad restaurants, housings, cost of living, foods, rentals, city conditions, elected officials etc etc etc. I can find that out easily.
> I know ton and tons of business owners from different kinds of categories from naked bar, buildings, casinos, hospitals, restaurants, farmers, instrument manufacturers, registry engineer or RN etc.etc. etc.
> 
> 
> On the side I really want to get back with Humorme about the Kaiser Hospital in Duluth where he claimed that only fewer than 15% are white doctors. But moderator close the thread before I can respond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot to mention. I also know a porno business owner. The reason I just remember this because of his house in Montecito, Ca that got flooded last Sunday cost $8.1 millions & 4 cars total lost, just moved in late this year. His house was just shown in local news here. I’ve been to that house last October and ate dinner with him last night in his other house in Beverly Hills.
> 
> Read this link. This is the owner of Kim Kardashian’s porno video. I know how much percentage Kim K. getting every month. I also know how much are these female porno or male actress are getting paid.
> If you asked me........ Have I seen live actual porno actions? Yes several times and it was quite an interesting experience. You will be shocked how low they are getting paid, who & where these beautiful women came from. Sad story. Now I can say these are predominantly white women, white male and black male. LOL Asians are not complaining.
> 
> Most successful porno actress which regards to how much $ she got paid was Jana Jameson. But this business has so much competition that brought the prices down tremendously. LOL you cannot blame the illegals for driving the cost down.
> 
> It was Bruce Jenner who made K. Kardashian’s video successful that made her very rich and famous. That was a very good and smart business move. During the height of that video Kim K was getting an average of $10 millions a month now it’s down to less than $1 million a month.
> 
> The dumbest one was Pamela Anderson & her husband then Tommy Lee stolen porno video.
> The whole world will see it anyway whether she likes it or not. So why not just let it go and make money just like Kim K. She end up getting nothing.
> 
> Donald Trump's Labor Nominee Sells His Mansion To Porn Mogul For $8 Million
Click to expand...




Humorme said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain again what I really do for a living in last 28 years before I took over the business from my parents.
> I’m in the medical industry business. Part of my business is to service hospitals all over the country. I have employees as Field Service Technicians that service assigned territories. If I need information about titi bars, good or bad restaurants, housings, cost of living, foods, rentals, city conditions, elected officials etc etc etc. I can find that out easily.
> I know ton and tons of business owners from different kinds of categories from naked bar, buildings, casinos, hospitals, restaurants, farmers, instrument manufacturers, registry engineer or RN etc.etc. etc.
> 
> 
> On the side I really want to get back with Humorme about the Kaiser Hospital in Duluth where he claimed that only fewer than 15% are white doctors. But moderator close the thread before I can respond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it helps, PM me.  I can refer you to somewhere that you can discuss this privately.
Click to expand...




charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i posted several times here. I know tons of businesses and business owners and farmers. These where I based my facts and opinions when it come to this topic.
> 
> The economy is booming. Without these illegals the economy will not be this good especially here in California the 6th largest economy of the world. That’s a fact.
> 
> California Crops Rot as Immigration Crackdown Creates Farmworker Shortage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Georgia has had the same problem for years:
> 
> Georgia's Harsh Immigration Law Costs Millions in Unharvested Crops
> 
> Migrant workers still in need
> 
> "_Crops went untended as the season's harvest began, and more than $1 million a day vanished as the human-fueled agricultural harvest machine of migrant labor in the United States stalled_."
> 
> Ben Carson's Immigrant Visa Idea Favored By Farmers As Nation's Crops Rot
> 
> It's been an issue in Alabama for years as well and some say this is a problem nationwide (and has been for as long as the crackdowns have been going on):
> 
> Alabama Illegal Immigrant Crackdown Destroys Farm Business
> 
> Crops rot while Trump-led immigration backlash idles farm work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they used the H2A visa, then there would be no problems for them, they would have all the labor they need since there are no annual caps for the H2A nor is there a limit to how many a single farmer can bring in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Illegals are here and they need to work instead of relying from welfare. Why is that so bad?
> 2. If it’s easier and cost effective to hire H2A don’t you think all of them could have done that?
> 
> Your opinion does not reflect the reality.
Click to expand...


Between posts # 255 and  # 260 you must've gotten a lot of extreme responses.  I don't see them as I've been forced to include a lot of trolls on my ignore list.

For the record...

There is no logical, honest, logical, or justifiable reason why people who are in this country without papers should not be allowed to work, earn money and partake of opportunities willingly offered.

The monotonous chant of _"it's illegal_" is no excuse to attempt to over-rule the will of the people who have spoken.  Nobody twists any Americans arm and forces them to hire, rent to, sell to, buy from, or otherwise do business with people the radical right insists on calling "_illegal aliens_."  If they're here and working while not being a public charge we need to get over it.

The best way for the American people to impose this anti-immigrant policy is simple:  Don't do business with them.  Don't allow your politicians to give them any freebies (that includes a constitutional amendment to deny their children a free public education.)

If you neighbor disagrees with you, then boycott your neighbor's business interests.  That way, if you choose to pay $5 for a handful of fruit because a bonded, back-ground checked, USDA approved white, English speaking, dude with a National ID Card, driver's license, Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_," that underwent the pee test, blood test, hair sample, MVR check, Interpol check, NICS check, local criminal background check, credit check, lie detector test, with a union card and a fruit picker's license then go with God and do it.  If you don't care who picked the fruit and you buy it for $1 because the farmer employed migrant workers, you should have that Right.

In the middle, we can create citizen solutions so that Americans and migrant workers can take the jobs without the BS, no crops will rot in the field and we may have to pay $2 for the same handful of fruit.

That suggestion is a starting point.


----------



## Coyote

JoeMoma said:


> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!




In my personal opinion...it's complicated.

No, I don't believe in "open boarders" - we need a good immigration and border policy to protect our country.

I think it's important to have a good border security policy.  I don't support a physical wall because of it's effect on the natural migrations of wildlife and on border communities.  But there are many other good ways of improving security that don't involve a wall.

When it comes to those already here - I am not that concerned unless they commit a violent crime.  Then, upon conviction (and jail time) - boot them out.  Otherwise I see it as a lesser category of crime...like trespassing.  I would rather spend law enforcement dollars on violent crimes - murder, rape, gang violence, drug violence.

I guess I don't understand why an illegal immigrant should be in the same category as a violent rapist.


----------



## JoeMoma

Coyote said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my personal opinion...it's complicated.
> 
> No, I don't believe in "open boarders" - we need a good immigration and border policy to protect our country.
> 
> I think it's important to have a good border security policy.  I don't support a physical wall because of it's effect on the natural migrations of wildlife and on border communities.  But there are many other good ways of improving security that don't involve a wall.
> 
> When it comes to those already here - I am not that concerned unless they commit a violent crime.  Then, upon conviction (and jail time) - boot them out.  Otherwise I see it as a lesser category of crime...like trespassing.  I would rather spend law enforcement dollars on violent crimes - murder, rape, gang violence, drug violence.
> 
> I guess I don't understand why an illegal immigrant should be in the same category as a violent rapist.
Click to expand...

So if Joe Illegal can sneak across the border tomorrow,then he becomes part of the already here category and gets de facto legal status?  I think it sends a mixed message to to have “border security” at the border but no means of enforcement within the borders once someone manages to breach that security.

I agree that it is a lessor category of crime than rape and murder and such.   Usually Trespassers are at minimum made to leave when they are caught trespassing.

That being said, if we stop giving those here illegally de facto legal status by allowing them access to things like public schools, driver’s licenses, jobs (not using e-verify), etc then there will be much less incentive for new illegal immigration.


----------



## Humorme

JoeMoma said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my personal opinion...it's complicated.
> 
> No, I don't believe in "open boarders" - we need a good immigration and border policy to protect our country.
> 
> I think it's important to have a good border security policy.  I don't support a physical wall because of it's effect on the natural migrations of wildlife and on border communities.  But there are many other good ways of improving security that don't involve a wall.
> 
> When it comes to those already here - I am not that concerned unless they commit a violent crime.  Then, upon conviction (and jail time) - boot them out.  Otherwise I see it as a lesser category of crime...like trespassing.  I would rather spend law enforcement dollars on violent crimes - murder, rape, gang violence, drug violence.
> 
> I guess I don't understand why an illegal immigrant should be in the same category as a violent rapist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if Joe Illegal can sneak across the border tomorrow,then he becomes part of the already here category and gets de facto legal status?  I think it sends a mixed message to to have “border security” at the border but no means of enforcement within the borders once someone manages to breach that security.
> 
> I agree that it is a lessor category of crime than rape and murder and such.   Usually Trespassers are at minimum made to leave when they are caught trespassing.
> 
> That being said, if we stop giving those here illegally de facto legal status by allowing them access to things like public schools, driver’s licenses, jobs (not using e-verify), etc then there will be much less incentive for new illegal immigration.
Click to expand...


If you deny things like access to public schools, welfare, and other government benefits, what is your problem with undocumented foreigners?

At the end of the day, you are still insinuating that someone must be a citizen or on the path to citizenship in order to be able to participate in the free market.  Here's the real bottom line problem:

Those who are on this border security kick cannot differentiate between citizenship and the Rights of every human.  When I hire people around my place, if they've done work for a neighbor; if I like their prices / terms; if I get the warm and fuzzy feeling, then they get the job.  No matter what laws they pass, that is never going to change.

If you want people to come here _"legally_,"  let them come in at a border checkpoint.  Issue Worker IDs if necessary.  But, this dishonest and totalitarian B.S. of visas that are capped and endless delays just to enter the United States is idiotic, pointless, and tyrannical.  It makes a mockery of the view that our country is open to anyone.  You can't have the Statue of Liberty welcoming people into the country on one hand and then making it impossible for people to come here.

The bottom line is that* YOU* would not allow a worthless piece of paper, issued by a tyrannical government deter *YOU* from taking a job to feed your family.  *YOU* would not allow Donald Trump to tell you that you couldn't go to Mexico and take a job there in order to feed your family - AND have to forfeit your citizenship here just to keep a roof over your family's head. 

You can sugar-coat it any way you want, but the nutty wall idea came from people who want the United States to be an all white country.  I'd have more respect for them and their supporters if they would simply quit trying to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  A lot of undocumented workers are being discovered today that have been here for twenty years or more.  They have gotten an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, paid the taxes, and obeyed all the other laws.  *They did not become citizens.  They may have had opportunities to become citizens and they passed on it*. What's the real problem?  Where is the security issue?  Why should anyone stand in any line in order to exercise the Rights of Liberty?  Guest Workers don't need to be standing in a line with people wanting to become citizens.  Guest Workers shouldn't even be on a list to become a citizen. 

Look, if you have a problem with those people working the jobs, then *boycott* businesses that employ an inordinate amount of foreigners. I see people offering jobs to Muslims, Jews, etc. and if I don't see some American faces, I *boycott *the business.  I don't try to tell that business who to hire nor what to pay.  If foreigners come here *properly* and they don't assimilate, I don't give two hoots in Hell what their story is.  They are no better than the paper-less foreigner that comes here and blends in.  Denying one employer the opportunity to hire a foreigner by making them stand in a line that ought to be for people seeking citizenship (and even those ought to be able to come and wait if they have the financial ability to be here) is discriminatory - and unconstitutional - as it denies the employer the equal protection of the laws.  If you don't like foreigners, then let the market decide.  If Americans don't want them here, don't hire them, don't sell to them, and quit shopping at businesses that employ them.  But, don't assume you have the Right to stand in the way of the Liberties of your fellow American NOR the foreigner who takes advantage of an opportunity *willingly* offered.


----------



## JoeMoma

Humorme said:


> If you deny things like access to public schools, welfare, and other government benefits, what is your problem with undocumented foreigners?



Those things are not denied.  If they were denied, I don’t think we would have an illegal immigration problem.

Also, like it or not, our republic has passed laws restricting immigration.  Those laws should either be enforced or changed/repealed.  I don’t have the right to enter another country without permission.  Non-citizens don’t have the right to enter the USA without permission either.  

We are essentially giving illegal immigrants squatter’s rights by having this “we are not going to touch you” attitude for those that set up residence without following the rules.


----------



## JoeMoma

Humorme said:


> If you want people to come here _"legally_," let them come in at a border checkpoint. Issue Worker IDs if necessary. But, this dishonest and totalitarian B.S. of visas that are capped and endless delays just to enter the United States is idiotic, pointless, and tyrannical. It makes a mockery of the view that our country is open to anyone. You can't have the Statue of Liberty welcoming people into the country on one hand and then making it impossible for people to come here.



A plaque placed at a statue does not make law or immigration policy.  Currently, our country is not open to everyone by law passed by congress and signed by the president.


----------



## danielpalos

The Party of Increased Litigation and not much legislative accomplishment, Strikes Again!


----------



## danielpalos

JoeMoma said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want people to come here _"legally_," let them come in at a border checkpoint. Issue Worker IDs if necessary. But, this dishonest and totalitarian B.S. of visas that are capped and endless delays just to enter the United States is idiotic, pointless, and tyrannical. It makes a mockery of the view that our country is open to anyone. You can't have the Statue of Liberty welcoming people into the country on one hand and then making it impossible for people to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A plaque placed at a statue does not make law or immigration policy.  Currently, our country is not open to everyone by law passed by congress and signed by the president.
Click to expand...

Stop using the Peoples' resources to create the Hellish conditions of warfare on Earth, we should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.


----------



## JoeMoma

danielpalos said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want people to come here _"legally_," let them come in at a border checkpoint. Issue Worker IDs if necessary. But, this dishonest and totalitarian B.S. of visas that are capped and endless delays just to enter the United States is idiotic, pointless, and tyrannical. It makes a mockery of the view that our country is open to anyone. You can't have the Statue of Liberty welcoming people into the country on one hand and then making it impossible for people to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A plaque placed at a statue does not make law or immigration policy.  Currently, our country is not open to everyone by law passed by congress and signed by the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop using the Peoples' resources to create the Hellish conditions of warfare on Earth, we should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
Click to expand...

I will add that to my list of New Years resolutions.
1. Lose weight
2. Stop using the People’s resources to create Hellish conditions of warfare.


----------



## JoeMoma

Humorme said:


> The bottom line is that* YOU* would not allow a worthless piece of paper, issued by a tyrannical government deter *YOU* from taking a job to feed your family. *YOU* would not allow Donald Trump to tell you that you couldn't go to Mexico and take a job there in order to feed your family - AND have to forfeit your citizenship here just to keep a roof over your family's head.



If I break the law either in the United States or any other country to provide for my family, I better be prepared to pay the consequences of breaking that law.  If the consequences are too high, I will most likely find another way.


----------



## task0778

JoeMoma said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want people to come here _"legally_," let them come in at a border checkpoint. Issue Worker IDs if necessary. But, this dishonest and totalitarian B.S. of visas that are capped and endless delays just to enter the United States is idiotic, pointless, and tyrannical. It makes a mockery of the view that our country is open to anyone. You can't have the Statue of Liberty welcoming people into the country on one hand and then making it impossible for people to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A plaque placed at a statue does not make law or immigration policy.  Currently, our country is not open to everyone by law passed by congress and signed by the president.
Click to expand...


Except for those sanctuary cities and states that openly flout that law for purely political purposes.


----------



## JoeMoma

Humorme said:


> You can sugar-coat it any way you want, but the nutty wall idea came from people who want the United States to be an all white country.


The United States is already diverse.  Also, it’s not just white people that want the wall.


----------



## danielpalos

task0778 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want people to come here _"legally_," let them come in at a border checkpoint. Issue Worker IDs if necessary. But, this dishonest and totalitarian B.S. of visas that are capped and endless delays just to enter the United States is idiotic, pointless, and tyrannical. It makes a mockery of the view that our country is open to anyone. You can't have the Statue of Liberty welcoming people into the country on one hand and then making it impossible for people to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A plaque placed at a statue does not make law or immigration policy.  Currently, our country is not open to everyone by law passed by congress and signed by the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for those sanctuary cities and states that openly flout that law for purely political purposes.
Click to expand...

First degrees need to go first!


----------



## Humorme

JoeMoma said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you deny things like access to public schools, welfare, and other government benefits, what is your problem with undocumented foreigners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those things are not denied.  If they were denied, I don’t think we would have an illegal immigration problem.
> 
> Also, like it or not, our republic has passed laws restricting immigration.  Those laws should either be enforced or changed/repealed.  I don’t have the right to enter another country without permission.  Non-citizens don’t have the right to enter the USA without permission either.
> 
> We are essentially giving illegal immigrants squatter’s rights by having this “we are not going to touch you” attitude for those that set up residence without following the rules.
Click to expand...


At the expense of *severe* trolling, I will tell you this:

The *ONLY* thing keeping people from coming here *properly*, as differentiated from illegally is a* VERY POORLY WRITTEN FEDERAL STATUTE*.  Those who *enforce* the laws have one interpretation of the law; those who dominate these boards, promoting intolerance of foreigners have a view... and there is another possible view.

The first view of the statute (and I will not discuss it further than this entry on this thread - so PM me) is that there is a criminal statute, making improper entry a crime.  The anti-immigrant lobby dares anyone to challenge them on this (to the point of threatening their lives for what I'll say in my next paragraph.)  

The second view is that there is a federal civil law that makes coming here without papers a *civil misdemeanor*. This has been the prevailing view for decades.  It is the basis on which immigration officials have interpreted the law.

Finally, the way the law is written, some laymen believe that one can be charged both criminally and civilly for the same offense.  They cannot.

When any law is unenforceable, it should be repealed.  And those exercising common sense will remember that employers treat workers as if they are commodities and goods.  They are numbers and to put it into the words of the 19th century economist, Otto T. Mallery:

“_If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky_.”  

In short, you can regulate Liberty, but you cannot criminalize it.


----------



## Humorme

JoeMoma said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want people to come here _"legally_," let them come in at a border checkpoint. Issue Worker IDs if necessary. But, this dishonest and totalitarian B.S. of visas that are capped and endless delays just to enter the United States is idiotic, pointless, and tyrannical. It makes a mockery of the view that our country is open to anyone. You can't have the Statue of Liberty welcoming people into the country on one hand and then making it impossible for people to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A plaque placed at a statue does not make law or immigration policy.  Currently, our country is not open to everyone by law passed by congress and signed by the president.
Click to expand...


_"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that* all men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their* Creator *with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life,* Liberty* and the pursuit of Happiness_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

“_The *Declaration of Independence*...[is the] *declaratory charter* of our rights, and of the rights of man_.” (Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence)


----------



## Humorme

JoeMoma said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can sugar-coat it any way you want, but the nutty wall idea came from people who want the United States to be an all white country.
> 
> 
> 
> The United States is already diverse.  Also, it’s not just white people that want the wall.
Click to expand...


Two illiterate skanks don't prove much.  We use to have an Executive Officer in the state militia that was pro-Confederate flag.  He was black.  Ask 99 out of 100 people today and the Confederate flag is a racist symbol.

The anti-immigrant argument was developed by a former neo-nazi turned Klansman, turned right wing political hack.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you deny things like access to public schools, welfare, and other government benefits, what is your problem with undocumented foreigners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those things are not denied.  If they were denied, I don’t think we would have an illegal immigration problem.
> 
> Also, like it or not, our republic has passed laws restricting immigration.  Those laws should either be enforced or changed/repealed.  I don’t have the right to enter another country without permission.  Non-citizens don’t have the right to enter the USA without permission either.
> 
> We are essentially giving illegal immigrants squatter’s rights by having this “we are not going to touch you” attitude for those that set up residence without following the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the expense of *severe* trolling, I will tell you this:
> 
> The *ONLY* thing keeping people from coming here *properly*, as differentiated from illegally is a* VERY POORLY WRITTEN FEDERAL STATUTE*.  Those who *enforce* the laws have one interpretation of the law; those who dominate these boards, promoting intolerance of foreigners have a view... and there is another possible view.
> 
> The first view of the statute (and I will not discuss it further than this entry on this thread - so PM me) is that there is a criminal statute, making improper entry a crime.  The anti-immigrant lobby dares anyone to challenge them on this (to the point of threatening their lives for what I'll say in my next paragraph.)
> 
> The second view is that there is a federal civil law that makes coming here without papers a *civil misdemeanor*. This has been the prevailing view for decades.  It is the basis on which immigration officials have interpreted the law.
> 
> Finally, the way the law is written, some laymen believe that one can be charged both criminally and civilly for the same offense.  They cannot.
> 
> When any law is unenforceable, it should be repealed.  And those exercising common sense will remember that employers treat workers as if they are commodities and goods.  They are numbers and to put it into the words of the 19th century economist, Otto T. Mallery:
> 
> “_If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky_.”
> 
> In short, you can regulate Liberty, but you cannot criminalize it.
Click to expand...

There is no thing called a civil misdemeanor. SMFH Misdemeanors are criminal acts, they are violations of law. How is improper entry unenforceable? Liberty doesn't grant one the right to enter another country without its authorization. SHRUG


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you deny things like access to public schools, welfare, and other government benefits, what is your problem with undocumented foreigners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those things are not denied.  If they were denied, I don’t think we would have an illegal immigration problem.
> 
> Also, like it or not, our republic has passed laws restricting immigration.  Those laws should either be enforced or changed/repealed.  I don’t have the right to enter another country without permission.  Non-citizens don’t have the right to enter the USA without permission either.
> 
> We are essentially giving illegal immigrants squatter’s rights by having this “we are not going to touch you” attitude for those that set up residence without following the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the expense of *severe* trolling, I will tell you this:
> 
> The *ONLY* thing keeping people from coming here *properly*, as differentiated from illegally is a* VERY POORLY WRITTEN FEDERAL STATUTE*.  Those who *enforce* the laws have one interpretation of the law; those who dominate these boards, promoting intolerance of foreigners have a view... and there is another possible view.
> 
> The first view of the statute (and I will not discuss it further than this entry on this thread - so PM me) is that there is a criminal statute, making improper entry a crime.  The anti-immigrant lobby dares anyone to challenge them on this (to the point of threatening their lives for what I'll say in my next paragraph.)
> 
> The second view is that there is a federal civil law that makes coming here without papers a *civil misdemeanor*. This has been the prevailing view for decades.  It is the basis on which immigration officials have interpreted the law.
> 
> Finally, the way the law is written, some laymen believe that one can be charged both criminally and civilly for the same offense.  They cannot.
> 
> When any law is unenforceable, it should be repealed.  And those exercising common sense will remember that employers treat workers as if they are commodities and goods.  They are numbers and to put it into the words of the 19th century economist, Otto T. Mallery:
> 
> “_If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky_.”
> 
> In short, you can regulate Liberty, but you cannot criminalize it.
Click to expand...

10USC246 is federal law; when is the right wing going to be legal to federal law?


----------



## task0778

I know!   Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it.   Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards.   Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge!   The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can sugar-coat it any way you want, but the nutty wall idea came from people who want the United States to be an all white country.
> 
> 
> 
> The United States is already diverse.  Also, it’s not just white people that want the wall.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two illiterate skanks don't prove much.  We use to have an Executive Officer in the state militia that was pro-Confederate flag.  He was black.  Ask 99 out of 100 people today and the Confederate flag is a racist symbol.
> 
> The anti-immigrant argument was developed by a former neo-nazi turned Klansman, turned right wing political hack.
Click to expand...

Rebels without a Cause is more like it.  Why glorify it.


----------



## danielpalos

task0778 said:


> I know!   Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it.   Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards.   Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge!   The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!


We need a federal ID system for Persons from out of State, for the ease and convenience of the several, United States.


----------



## JoeMoma

Humorme said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can sugar-coat it any way you want, but the nutty wall idea came from people who want the United States to be an all white country.
> 
> 
> 
> The United States is already diverse.  Also, it’s not just white people that want the wall.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two illiterate skanks don't prove much.  We use to have an Executive Officer in the state militia that was pro-Confederate flag.  He was black.  Ask 99 out of 100 people today and the Confederate flag is a racist symbol.
> 
> The anti-immigrant argument was developed by a former neo-nazi turned Klansman, turned right wing political hack.
Click to expand...

“Two illiterate skanks”!  OMG!


----------



## JoeMoma

task0778 said:


> I know!   Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it.   Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards.   Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge!   The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!


Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.


----------



## task0778

Coyote said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my personal opinion...it's complicated.
> 
> No, I don't believe in "open boarders" - we need a good immigration and border policy to protect our country.
> 
> I think it's important to have a good border security policy.  I don't support a physical wall because of it's effect on the natural migrations of wildlife and on border communities.  But there are many other good ways of improving security that don't involve a wall.
> 
> When it comes to those already here - I am not that concerned unless they commit a violent crime.  Then, upon conviction (and jail time) - boot them out.  Otherwise I see it as a lesser category of crime...like trespassing.  I would rather spend law enforcement dollars on violent crimes - murder, rape, gang violence, drug violence.
> 
> I guess I don't understand why an illegal immigrant should be in the same category as a violent rapist.
Click to expand...


Well, let's talk about that.   First off, an illegal immigrant is not in the same category as a rapist or murderer, do we execute illegals or imprison them for life just for being an illegal?   I don't think so.   But illegal entry IS a crime, a lesser one as you say.   And yet many want to ignore that law, they've created sanctuary cities and even states for lawbreakers, have they not?   So, are we a nation of laws or not?   We're not if some people are allowed to decide whether some laws should be enforced and some ignored.

And finally, about those who are already here, you're not that concerned if they haven't committed a crime?   What about the drain on our social services and programs that millions of extra people consume?   You're fine then with an open border policy then, let 'em all in?   How many more people do you think this country can manage to accept and afford to provide the same services that our citizens get?   

About that wall, I'm not so naive that I believe that wall will deny entry to every person who is trying to cross our border.   They'll dig tunnels, they'll go around it, over it, whatever.   But it will keep many people out I think, at least stem the flow.   So it ain't the answer, not the only one.   But it is something that can and should be done.   I don't think there's much in the way of natural migrations there, and I'm not seeing much of a negative effect on local communities on our side anyway.


----------



## JoeMoma

task0778 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my personal opinion...it's complicated.
> 
> No, I don't believe in "open boarders" - we need a good immigration and border policy to protect our country.
> 
> I think it's important to have a good border security policy.  I don't support a physical wall because of it's effect on the natural migrations of wildlife and on border communities.  But there are many other good ways of improving security that don't involve a wall.
> 
> When it comes to those already here - I am not that concerned unless they commit a violent crime.  Then, upon conviction (and jail time) - boot them out.  Otherwise I see it as a lesser category of crime...like trespassing.  I would rather spend law enforcement dollars on violent crimes - murder, rape, gang violence, drug violence.
> 
> I guess I don't understand why an illegal immigrant should be in the same category as a violent rapist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let's talk about that.   First off, an illegal immigrant is not in the same category as a rapist or murderer, do we execute illegals or imprison them for life just for being an illegal?   I don't think so.   But illegal entry IS a crime, a lesser one as you say.   And yet many want to ignore that law, they've created sanctuary cities and even states for lawbreakers, have they not?   So, are we a nation of laws or not?   We're not if some people are allowed to decide whether some laws should be enforced and some ignored.
> 
> And finally, about those who are already here, you're not that concerned if they haven't committed a crime?   What about the drain on our social services and programs that millions of extra people consume?   You're fine then with an open border policy then, let 'em all in?   How many more people do you think this country can manage to accept and afford to provide the same services that our citizens get?
> 
> About that wall, I'm not so naive that I believe that wall will deny entry to every person who is trying to cross our border.   They'll dig tunnels, they'll go around it, over it, whatever.   But it will keep many people out I think, at least stem the flow.   So it ain't the answer, not the only one.   But it is something that can and should be done.   I don't think there's much in the way of natural migrations there, and I'm not seeing much of a negative effect on local communities on our side anyway.
Click to expand...

I don’t think A Wall is required to have border security and it may not be the most cost effective way to secure the border.  However, combined with other measures to secure the border, The Wall will definitely send a message to the rest of the world that a new sheriff is in town when it comes to illegal immigration.


----------



## Humorme

task0778 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want people to come here _"legally_," let them come in at a border checkpoint. Issue Worker IDs if necessary. But, this dishonest and totalitarian B.S. of visas that are capped and endless delays just to enter the United States is idiotic, pointless, and tyrannical. It makes a mockery of the view that our country is open to anyone. You can't have the Statue of Liberty welcoming people into the country on one hand and then making it impossible for people to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A plaque placed at a statue does not make law or immigration policy.  Currently, our country is not open to everyone by law passed by congress and signed by the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for those sanctuary cities and states that openly flout that law for purely political purposes.
Click to expand...


And why, really, does the anti-immigrant lobby demand that immigration laws be enforced above any other laws?  And why do they suggest that improper entry cases be treated like felonies?  You don't think that is politics?

If they demanded that the drug laws be enforced to the degree they demand immigration laws be enforced, you would not have any drug problem.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you deny things like access to public schools, welfare, and other government benefits, what is your problem with undocumented foreigners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those things are not denied.  If they were denied, I don’t think we would have an illegal immigration problem.
> 
> Also, like it or not, our republic has passed laws restricting immigration.  Those laws should either be enforced or changed/repealed.  I don’t have the right to enter another country without permission.  Non-citizens don’t have the right to enter the USA without permission either.
> 
> We are essentially giving illegal immigrants squatter’s rights by having this “we are not going to touch you” attitude for those that set up residence without following the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the expense of *severe* trolling, I will tell you this:
> 
> The *ONLY* thing keeping people from coming here *properly*, as differentiated from illegally is a* VERY POORLY WRITTEN FEDERAL STATUTE*.  Those who *enforce* the laws have one interpretation of the law; those who dominate these boards, promoting intolerance of foreigners have a view... and there is another possible view.
> 
> The first view of the statute (and I will not discuss it further than this entry on this thread - so PM me) is that there is a criminal statute, making improper entry a crime.  The anti-immigrant lobby dares anyone to challenge them on this (to the point of threatening their lives for what I'll say in my next paragraph.)
> 
> The second view is that there is a federal civil law that makes coming here without papers a *civil misdemeanor*. This has been the prevailing view for decades.  It is the basis on which immigration officials have interpreted the law.
> 
> Finally, the way the law is written, some laymen believe that one can be charged both criminally and civilly for the same offense.  They cannot.
> 
> When any law is unenforceable, it should be repealed.  And those exercising common sense will remember that employers treat workers as if they are commodities and goods.  They are numbers and to put it into the words of the 19th century economist, Otto T. Mallery:
> 
> “_If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky_.”
> 
> In short, you can regulate Liberty, but you cannot criminalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10USC246 is federal law; when is the right wing going to be legal to federal law?
Click to expand...


I think you're going too far afield...

OTOH, this whole build the wall B.S. is the result of a time when the militia *WAS* manning the border and protecting private property.  National Socialists did not like that and preferred that private property owners *not* have the Right and the Duty to protect their own land.


----------



## Humorme

task0778 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my personal opinion...it's complicated.
> 
> No, I don't believe in "open boarders" - we need a good immigration and border policy to protect our country.
> 
> I think it's important to have a good border security policy.  I don't support a physical wall because of it's effect on the natural migrations of wildlife and on border communities.  But there are many other good ways of improving security that don't involve a wall.
> 
> When it comes to those already here - I am not that concerned unless they commit a violent crime.  Then, upon conviction (and jail time) - boot them out.  Otherwise I see it as a lesser category of crime...like trespassing.  I would rather spend law enforcement dollars on violent crimes - murder, rape, gang violence, drug violence.
> 
> I guess I don't understand why an illegal immigrant should be in the same category as a violent rapist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let's talk about that.   First off, an illegal immigrant is not in the same category as a rapist or murderer, do we execute illegals or imprison them for life just for being an illegal?   I don't think so.   But illegal entry IS a crime, a lesser one as you say.   And yet many want to ignore that law, they've created sanctuary cities and even states for lawbreakers, have they not?   So, are we a nation of laws or not?   We're not if some people are allowed to decide whether some laws should be enforced and some ignored.
> 
> And finally, about those who are already here, you're not that concerned if they haven't committed a crime?   What about the drain on our social services and programs that millions of extra people consume?   You're fine then with an open border policy then, let 'em all in?   How many more people do you think this country can manage to accept and afford to provide the same services that our citizens get?
> 
> About that wall, I'm not so naive that I believe that wall will deny entry to every person who is trying to cross our border.   They'll dig tunnels, they'll go around it, over it, whatever.   But it will keep many people out I think, at least stem the flow.   So it ain't the answer, not the only one.   But it is something that can and should be done.   I don't think there's much in the way of natural migrations there, and I'm not seeing much of a negative effect on local communities on our side anyway.
Click to expand...



OMG... Please.  Let me give you a clue.

I asked a Mexican in front of an audience (and he had several experiences)

Me:  Hosea, If you get in an argument with your wife and the police come, what happens?

Hosea:  I go to the jail

Me:  If you are driving down the road and the police pull you over and you've been drinking, what happens?

Hosea:  I go to the jail

Me:  If the police ask you for your papers, what happens?

Hosea: I go Mexico

Your alleged "_drain_" on public services is a myth. Undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they get in government services.

There* IS *an answer that don't include a wall, National ID, building a bigger and more intrusive government and, especially, telling states who they can and cannot invite into their country.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you deny things like access to public schools, welfare, and other government benefits, what is your problem with undocumented foreigners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those things are not denied.  If they were denied, I don’t think we would have an illegal immigration problem.
> 
> Also, like it or not, our republic has passed laws restricting immigration.  Those laws should either be enforced or changed/repealed.  I don’t have the right to enter another country without permission.  Non-citizens don’t have the right to enter the USA without permission either.
> 
> We are essentially giving illegal immigrants squatter’s rights by having this “we are not going to touch you” attitude for those that set up residence without following the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the expense of *severe* trolling, I will tell you this:
> 
> The *ONLY* thing keeping people from coming here *properly*, as differentiated from illegally is a* VERY POORLY WRITTEN FEDERAL STATUTE*.  Those who *enforce* the laws have one interpretation of the law; those who dominate these boards, promoting intolerance of foreigners have a view... and there is another possible view.
> 
> The first view of the statute (and I will not discuss it further than this entry on this thread - so PM me) is that there is a criminal statute, making improper entry a crime.  The anti-immigrant lobby dares anyone to challenge them on this (to the point of threatening their lives for what I'll say in my next paragraph.)
> 
> The second view is that there is a federal civil law that makes coming here without papers a *civil misdemeanor*. This has been the prevailing view for decades.  It is the basis on which immigration officials have interpreted the law.
> 
> Finally, the way the law is written, some laymen believe that one can be charged both criminally and civilly for the same offense.  They cannot.
> 
> When any law is unenforceable, it should be repealed.  And those exercising common sense will remember that employers treat workers as if they are commodities and goods.  They are numbers and to put it into the words of the 19th century economist, Otto T. Mallery:
> 
> “_If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky_.”
> 
> In short, you can regulate Liberty, but you cannot criminalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10USC246 is federal law; when is the right wing going to be legal to federal law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're going too far afield...
> 
> OTOH, this whole build the wall B.S. is the result of a time when the militia *WAS* manning the border and protecting private property.  National Socialists did not like that and preferred that private property owners *not* have the Right and the Duty to protect their own land.
Click to expand...

the law is the law, right wingers.


----------



## Humorme

JoeMoma said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that* YOU* would not allow a worthless piece of paper, issued by a tyrannical government deter *YOU* from taking a job to feed your family. *YOU* would not allow Donald Trump to tell you that you couldn't go to Mexico and take a job there in order to feed your family - AND have to forfeit your citizenship here just to keep a roof over your family's head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I break the law either in the United States or any other country to provide for my family, I better be prepared to pay the consequences of breaking that law.  If the consequences are too high, I will most likely find another way.
Click to expand...


If you like the laws of communist and totalitarian countries, wouldn't you be happier there than in a free market economy?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want people to come here _"legally_," let them come in at a border checkpoint. Issue Worker IDs if necessary. But, this dishonest and totalitarian B.S. of visas that are capped and endless delays just to enter the United States is idiotic, pointless, and tyrannical. It makes a mockery of the view that our country is open to anyone. You can't have the Statue of Liberty welcoming people into the country on one hand and then making it impossible for people to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A plaque placed at a statue does not make law or immigration policy.  Currently, our country is not open to everyone by law passed by congress and signed by the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for those sanctuary cities and states that openly flout that law for purely political purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why, really, does the anti-immigrant lobby demand that immigration laws be enforced above any other laws?  And why do they suggest that improper entry cases be treated like felonies?  You don't think that is politics?
> 
> If they demanded that the drug laws be enforced to the degree they demand immigration laws be enforced, you would not have any drug problem.
Click to expand...

The first offense for improper entry is a federal criminal misdemeanor, the second offense is a federal criminal felony. No, it's not politics, it's actual law. SMFH

Blame the local/state leaders telling LEO not to police it when the locals want it policed. It is the politicians placing the priority on the crime. SHRUG


----------



## Humorme

task0778 said:


> I know!   Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it.   Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards.   Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge!   The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!



We've had open borders since the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.

*EVERY* state was the same as a sanctuary state until 1875

Again, your post is indicative of people that refuse to read a thread before participating.  That means I have to keep repeating the same stuff over and over.

The build the wall proponents cannot differentiate or delineate between the *privileges and immunities of citizenship* versus the *unalienable *Rights of all men.  But, that is the reason you allow people to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered, but *YOU DO NOT MAKE CITIZENS OUT OF GUEST WORKERS.  NEITHER DO YOU GIVE GUEST WORKERS THE BENEFITS / PRIVILEGES / IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP*.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you deny things like access to public schools, welfare, and other government benefits, what is your problem with undocumented foreigners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those things are not denied.  If they were denied, I don’t think we would have an illegal immigration problem.
> 
> Also, like it or not, our republic has passed laws restricting immigration.  Those laws should either be enforced or changed/repealed.  I don’t have the right to enter another country without permission.  Non-citizens don’t have the right to enter the USA without permission either.
> 
> We are essentially giving illegal immigrants squatter’s rights by having this “we are not going to touch you” attitude for those that set up residence without following the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> At the expense of *severe* trolling, I will tell you this:
> 
> The *ONLY* thing keeping people from coming here *properly*, as differentiated from illegally is a* VERY POORLY WRITTEN FEDERAL STATUTE*.  Those who *enforce* the laws have one interpretation of the law; those who dominate these boards, promoting intolerance of foreigners have a view... and there is another possible view.
> 
> The first view of the statute (and I will not discuss it further than this entry on this thread - so PM me) is that there is a criminal statute, making improper entry a crime.  The anti-immigrant lobby dares anyone to challenge them on this (to the point of threatening their lives for what I'll say in my next paragraph.)
> 
> The second view is that there is a federal civil law that makes coming here without papers a *civil misdemeanor*. This has been the prevailing view for decades.  It is the basis on which immigration officials have interpreted the law.
> 
> Finally, the way the law is written, some laymen believe that one can be charged both criminally and civilly for the same offense.  They cannot.
> 
> When any law is unenforceable, it should be repealed.  And those exercising common sense will remember that employers treat workers as if they are commodities and goods.  They are numbers and to put it into the words of the 19th century economist, Otto T. Mallery:
> 
> “_If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky_.”
> 
> In short, you can regulate Liberty, but you cannot criminalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10USC246 is federal law; when is the right wing going to be legal to federal law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're going too far afield...
> 
> OTOH, this whole build the wall B.S. is the result of a time when the militia *WAS* manning the border and protecting private property.  National Socialists did not like that and preferred that private property owners *not* have the Right and the Duty to protect their own land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is the law, right wingers.
Click to expand...


What is with you and this incessant need to make everything a _right wing _issue?  The left has no monopoly on being right.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> We've had open borders since the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.


We did? Why do you suppose those very pilgrams had to obtain the authority of the King of England to come to the New World?



Humorme said:


> *Every* state was the same as a sanctuary state until 1875


Why does the Articles of Confederation incorporate immigration into its Confederated Articles?



Humorme said:


> Again, your post is indicative of people that refuse to read a thread before participating.  That means I have to keep repeating the same stuff over and over.


You keep repeating the same stupid shit because everybody else has told you you are wrong, you simply refuse to accept it. SHRUG



Humorme said:


> The build the wall proponents cannot differentiate or delineate between the *privileges and immunities of citizenship* versus the *unalienable *Rights of all men.  But, that is the reason you allow people to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered, but *YOU DO NOT MAKE CITIZENS OUT OF GUEST WORKERS.  NEITHER DO YOU GIVE GUEST WORKERS THE BENEFITS / PRIVILEGES / IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP*.


The unalienable rights of man does not grant the right to enter another Nation without that Nations authority. That is an accepted recognition even with the Council of Human Rights. There are no opportunities willingly offered when the illegal is using fake/forged/stolen documents in order to obtain that work. Guest workers are suppose to leave after a given time, they are not allowed to stay beyond that period. Illegals have overstayed that time and should therefor be sent home so the next batch of workers have their opportunity to the same benefits as the illegals have taken.


----------



## danielpalos

Liquid Reigns said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want people to come here _"legally_," let them come in at a border checkpoint. Issue Worker IDs if necessary. But, this dishonest and totalitarian B.S. of visas that are capped and endless delays just to enter the United States is idiotic, pointless, and tyrannical. It makes a mockery of the view that our country is open to anyone. You can't have the Statue of Liberty welcoming people into the country on one hand and then making it impossible for people to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A plaque placed at a statue does not make law or immigration policy.  Currently, our country is not open to everyone by law passed by congress and signed by the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for those sanctuary cities and states that openly flout that law for purely political purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why, really, does the anti-immigrant lobby demand that immigration laws be enforced above any other laws?  And why do they suggest that improper entry cases be treated like felonies?  You don't think that is politics?
> 
> If they demanded that the drug laws be enforced to the degree they demand immigration laws be enforced, you would not have any drug problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first offense for improper entry is a federal criminal misdemeanor, the second offense is a federal criminal felony. No, it's not politics, it's actual law. SMFH
> 
> Blame the local/state leaders telling LEO not to police it when the locals want it policed. It is the politicians placing the priority on the crime. SHRUG
Click to expand...

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no Prohibition or drug war clause.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

DACA NOW!!!
OPEN BORDERS NOW!!!
or DEATH TO AMERICANS NOW !!!

(That's the way they see it anyway)


----------



## Liquid Reigns

danielpalos said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want people to come here _"legally_," let them come in at a border checkpoint. Issue Worker IDs if necessary. But, this dishonest and totalitarian B.S. of visas that are capped and endless delays just to enter the United States is idiotic, pointless, and tyrannical. It makes a mockery of the view that our country is open to anyone. You can't have the Statue of Liberty welcoming people into the country on one hand and then making it impossible for people to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A plaque placed at a statue does not make law or immigration policy.  Currently, our country is not open to everyone by law passed by congress and signed by the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for those sanctuary cities and states that openly flout that law for purely political purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why, really, does the anti-immigrant lobby demand that immigration laws be enforced above any other laws?  And why do they suggest that improper entry cases be treated like felonies?  You don't think that is politics?
> 
> If they demanded that the drug laws be enforced to the degree they demand immigration laws be enforced, you would not have any drug problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first offense for improper entry is a federal criminal misdemeanor, the second offense is a federal criminal felony. No, it's not politics, it's actual law. SMFH
> 
> Blame the local/state leaders telling LEO not to police it when the locals want it policed. It is the politicians placing the priority on the crime. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Commerce Clause; there is no Prohibition or drug war clause.
Click to expand...

We also have a foreign relations clause. SHRUG


----------



## task0778

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those things are not denied.  If they were denied, I don’t think we would have an illegal immigration problem.
> 
> Also, like it or not, our republic has passed laws restricting immigration.  Those laws should either be enforced or changed/repealed.  I don’t have the right to enter another country without permission.  Non-citizens don’t have the right to enter the USA without permission either.
> 
> We are essentially giving illegal immigrants squatter’s rights by having this “we are not going to touch you” attitude for those that set up residence without following the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the expense of *severe* trolling, I will tell you this:
> 
> The *ONLY* thing keeping people from coming here *properly*, as differentiated from illegally is a* VERY POORLY WRITTEN FEDERAL STATUTE*.  Those who *enforce* the laws have one interpretation of the law; those who dominate these boards, promoting intolerance of foreigners have a view... and there is another possible view.
> 
> The first view of the statute (and I will not discuss it further than this entry on this thread - so PM me) is that there is a criminal statute, making improper entry a crime.  The anti-immigrant lobby dares anyone to challenge them on this (to the point of threatening their lives for what I'll say in my next paragraph.)
> 
> The second view is that there is a federal civil law that makes coming here without papers a *civil misdemeanor*. This has been the prevailing view for decades.  It is the basis on which immigration officials have interpreted the law.
> 
> Finally, the way the law is written, some laymen believe that one can be charged both criminally and civilly for the same offense.  They cannot.
> 
> When any law is unenforceable, it should be repealed.  And those exercising common sense will remember that employers treat workers as if they are commodities and goods.  They are numbers and to put it into the words of the 19th century economist, Otto T. Mallery:
> 
> “_If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky_.”
> 
> In short, you can regulate Liberty, but you cannot criminalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10USC246 is federal law; when is the right wing going to be legal to federal law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're going too far afield...
> 
> OTOH, this whole build the wall B.S. is the result of a time when the militia *WAS* manning the border and protecting private property.  National Socialists did not like that and preferred that private property owners *not* have the Right and the Duty to protect their own land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is the law, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is with you and this incessant need to make everything a _right wing _issue?  *The left has no monopoly on being right.*
Click to expand...


No kidding.   But I see the Left supporting sanctuary cities and states, in flagrant disregard for federal law.   Many if not most are for open borders, come on in and we'll take care of you.   We'll worry about whether you are a drug runner or terrorist later.   As for the drain on our public coffers , consider this from The Hill:

_The total cost of illegal immigration to federal, state and local taxpayers for the nation’s 12.5 million illegal aliens has increased to $116 billion annually, according to a new study released Wednesday by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The study, one of the most comprehensive to date on the issue, investigates the major contributing factors driving the high cost of illegal immigration, and compares that to the revenue state and local governments collect from illegal aliens.

The findings paint a much different picture than what open-border proponents and many in the mainstream media try to portray — that illegal immigration is somehow a net positive to the United States economy.

FAIR found that while illegal immigrants pay billions of dollars in taxes every year, they ultimately cost taxpayers more than seven times what they contribute. The study found that illegal immigrants pay almost $19 billion annually in combined federal, state and local taxes. This estimate is actually considerably higher than what many studies before this have suggested. However, the amount of taxes illegal immigrants pay is dwarfed by the considerable costs that they impose on American taxpayers: nearly $135 billion annually, creating a net deficit of $116 billion.

The majority of the costs to taxpayers, $89 billion (66 percent), are borne at the local and state level. This means that American taxpayers are forced to bear the costs of the federal government’s failure to secure our borders every time they pay school taxes, local tolls, sales and excise taxes. It also means that illegal migrants get a lot of benefits that they don’t pay for._


----------



## Coyote

JoeMoma said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my personal opinion...it's complicated.
> 
> No, I don't believe in "open boarders" - we need a good immigration and border policy to protect our country.
> 
> I think it's important to have a good border security policy.  I don't support a physical wall because of it's effect on the natural migrations of wildlife and on border communities.  But there are many other good ways of improving security that don't involve a wall.
> 
> When it comes to those already here - I am not that concerned unless they commit a violent crime.  Then, upon conviction (and jail time) - boot them out.  Otherwise I see it as a lesser category of crime...like trespassing.  I would rather spend law enforcement dollars on violent crimes - murder, rape, gang violence, drug violence.
> 
> I guess I don't understand why an illegal immigrant should be in the same category as a violent rapist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if Joe Illegal can sneak across the border tomorrow,then he becomes part of the already here category and gets de facto legal status?  I think it sends a mixed message to to have “border security” at the border but no means of enforcement within the borders once someone manages to breach that security.
> 
> I agree that it is a lessor category of crime than rape and murder and such.   Usually Trespassers are at minimum made to leave when they are caught trespassing.
> 
> That being said, if we stop giving those here illegally de facto legal status by allowing them access to things like public schools, driver’s licenses, jobs (not using e-verify), etc then there will be much less incentive for new illegal immigration.
Click to expand...


It will not affect the economic reasons driving illegal immigration much, all it will do is create an underclass of uneducated people and essentially punish children for the actions of their parents.  The first is dangerous the second just plain wrong.  

When it comes to enforcement we have a limited pot of money.  I would rather prioritize enforcement, concentrating on violent crime, drug trafficking and improving enforcement at the border.

The other part of it is tearing apart families...do we really want to put most of our efforts into that, over other aspects of illegal immigration if they are not causing problems?


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Coyote said:


> It will not affect the economic reasons driving illegal immigration much, all it will do is create an underclass of uneducated people and essentially punish children for the actions of their parents.  The first is dangerous the second just plain wrong.
> 
> When it comes to enforcement we have a limited pot of money.  I would rather prioritize enforcement, concentrating on violent crime, drug trafficking and improving enforcement at the border.
> 
> The other part of it is tearing apart families...do we really want to put most of our efforts into that, over other aspects of illegal immigration if they are not causing problems?



No need to tear families apart.......

The parents are free to go home with their illegal offspring

But the real problem is not solved until there is a REAL deterrence to crossing the border illegally.
Something more unforgettable than the fear (lol) of deportation.   Deportation is a running joke.
It simply means a all expense paid trip home only to return again...and again...and again


----------



## Coyote

JoeMoma said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know!   Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it.   Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards.   Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge!   The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!
> 
> 
> 
> Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.
Click to expand...

There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.


----------



## Coyote

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will not affect the economic reasons driving illegal immigration much, all it will do is create an underclass of uneducated people and essentially punish children for the actions of their parents.  The first is dangerous the second just plain wrong.
> 
> When it comes to enforcement we have a limited pot of money.  I would rather prioritize enforcement, concentrating on violent crime, drug trafficking and improving enforcement at the border.
> 
> The other part of it is tearing apart families...do we really want to put most of our efforts into that, over other aspects of illegal immigration if they are not causing problems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to tear families apart.......
> 
> The parents are free to go home with their illegal offspring
> 
> But the real problem is not solved until there is a REAL deterrence to crossing the border illegally.
> Something more unforgettable than the fear (lol) of deportation.   Deportation is a running joke.
> It simply means a all expense paid trip home only to return again...and again...and again
Click to expand...

And their legal offspring?


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Coyote said:


> There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.



There is little to no credible evidence Trump is a racist...but you still believe it....why?


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Coyote said:


> And their legal offspring?



As far as the sovereignty of THIS nation is concerned.....

ANY child born to an illegal must go home with their illegal parents.
The birther law was a HUGE mistake.   Only two developed nations have that disastrous nonsense.  And of those two, ONLY the USA has had it's culture destroyed because of it.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Coyote said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will not affect the economic reasons driving illegal immigration much, all it will do is create an underclass of uneducated people and essentially punish children for the actions of their parents.  The first is dangerous the second just plain wrong.
> 
> When it comes to enforcement we have a limited pot of money.  I would rather prioritize enforcement, concentrating on violent crime, drug trafficking and improving enforcement at the border.
> 
> The other part of it is tearing apart families...do we really want to put most of our efforts into that, over other aspects of illegal immigration if they are not causing problems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to tear families apart.......
> 
> The parents are free to go home with their illegal offspring
> 
> But the real problem is not solved until there is a REAL deterrence to crossing the border illegally.
> Something more unforgettable than the fear (lol) of deportation.   Deportation is a running joke.
> It simply means a all expense paid trip home only to return again...and again...and again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And their legal offspring?
Click to expand...

They can take them with them. Children move with their parents all the time. They are, after all. the responsibility of their parents.


----------



## Humorme

task0778 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the expense of *severe* trolling, I will tell you this:
> 
> The *ONLY* thing keeping people from coming here *properly*, as differentiated from illegally is a* VERY POORLY WRITTEN FEDERAL STATUTE*.  Those who *enforce* the laws have one interpretation of the law; those who dominate these boards, promoting intolerance of foreigners have a view... and there is another possible view.
> 
> The first view of the statute (and I will not discuss it further than this entry on this thread - so PM me) is that there is a criminal statute, making improper entry a crime.  The anti-immigrant lobby dares anyone to challenge them on this (to the point of threatening their lives for what I'll say in my next paragraph.)
> 
> The second view is that there is a federal civil law that makes coming here without papers a *civil misdemeanor*. This has been the prevailing view for decades.  It is the basis on which immigration officials have interpreted the law.
> 
> Finally, the way the law is written, some laymen believe that one can be charged both criminally and civilly for the same offense.  They cannot.
> 
> When any law is unenforceable, it should be repealed.  And those exercising common sense will remember that employers treat workers as if they are commodities and goods.  They are numbers and to put it into the words of the 19th century economist, Otto T. Mallery:
> 
> “_If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky_.”
> 
> In short, you can regulate Liberty, but you cannot criminalize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 10USC246 is federal law; when is the right wing going to be legal to federal law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're going too far afield...
> 
> OTOH, this whole build the wall B.S. is the result of a time when the militia *WAS* manning the border and protecting private property.  National Socialists did not like that and preferred that private property owners *not* have the Right and the Duty to protect their own land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is the law, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is with you and this incessant need to make everything a _right wing _issue?  *The left has no monopoly on being right.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No kidding.   But I see the Left supporting sanctuary cities and states, in flagrant disregard for federal law.   Many if not most are for open borders, come on in and we'll take care of you.   We'll worry about whether you are a drug runner or terrorist later.   As for the drain on our public coffers , consider this from The Hill:
> 
> _The total cost of illegal immigration to federal, state and local taxpayers for the nation’s 12.5 million illegal aliens has increased to $116 billion annually, according to a new study released Wednesday by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The study, one of the most comprehensive to date on the issue, investigates the major contributing factors driving the high cost of illegal immigration, and compares that to the revenue state and local governments collect from illegal aliens.
> 
> The findings paint a much different picture than what open-border proponents and many in the mainstream media try to portray — that illegal immigration is somehow a net positive to the United States economy.
> 
> FAIR found that while illegal immigrants pay billions of dollars in taxes every year, they ultimately cost taxpayers more than seven times what they contribute. The study found that illegal immigrants pay almost $19 billion annually in combined federal, state and local taxes. This estimate is actually considerably higher than what many studies before this have suggested. However, the amount of taxes illegal immigrants pay is dwarfed by the considerable costs that they impose on American taxpayers: nearly $135 billion annually, creating a net deficit of $116 billion.
> 
> The majority of the costs to taxpayers, $89 billion (66 percent), are borne at the local and state level. This means that American taxpayers are forced to bear the costs of the federal government’s failure to secure our borders every time they pay school taxes, local tolls, sales and excise taxes. It also means that illegal migrants get a lot of benefits that they don’t pay for._
Click to expand...


Let me explain what is wrong with your stats:

1)  _Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is own_ed and financed by John Tanton.  Tanton is a neo-nazi and billionaire racist

2)  Independent studies done by non-partisan organizations dispute your stats


----------



## Humorme

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And their legal offspring?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the sovereignty of THIS nation is concerned.....
> 
> ANY child born to an illegal must go home with their illegal parents.
> The birther law was a HUGE mistake.   Only two developed nations have that disastrous nonsense.  And of those two, ONLY the USA has had it's culture destroyed because of it.
Click to expand...


A birther law?  WTH is that?  Let me repeat post # 6 since you're obviously not going to read this thread:

You build a wall. You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing. So, anyway you kick them out along with their American born children. Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key. Problem solved. Right? Wrong.

The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not. You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate. They want to come _home_. Sorry guys, you can't keep them out. They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)

So, they start coming here in droves. They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills. Now what do you do? I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.

You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with. I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.


----------



## danielpalos

Liquid Reigns said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> A plaque placed at a statue does not make law or immigration policy.  Currently, our country is not open to everyone by law passed by congress and signed by the president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for those sanctuary cities and states that openly flout that law for purely political purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why, really, does the anti-immigrant lobby demand that immigration laws be enforced above any other laws?  And why do they suggest that improper entry cases be treated like felonies?  You don't think that is politics?
> 
> If they demanded that the drug laws be enforced to the degree they demand immigration laws be enforced, you would not have any drug problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first offense for improper entry is a federal criminal misdemeanor, the second offense is a federal criminal felony. No, it's not politics, it's actual law. SMFH
> 
> Blame the local/state leaders telling LEO not to police it when the locals want it policed. It is the politicians placing the priority on the crime. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Commerce Clause; there is no Prohibition or drug war clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We also have a foreign relations clause. SHRUG
Click to expand...

there is no power to Prohibit in our federal Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

task0778 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the expense of *severe* trolling, I will tell you this:
> 
> The *ONLY* thing keeping people from coming here *properly*, as differentiated from illegally is a* VERY POORLY WRITTEN FEDERAL STATUTE*.  Those who *enforce* the laws have one interpretation of the law; those who dominate these boards, promoting intolerance of foreigners have a view... and there is another possible view.
> 
> The first view of the statute (and I will not discuss it further than this entry on this thread - so PM me) is that there is a criminal statute, making improper entry a crime.  The anti-immigrant lobby dares anyone to challenge them on this (to the point of threatening their lives for what I'll say in my next paragraph.)
> 
> The second view is that there is a federal civil law that makes coming here without papers a *civil misdemeanor*. This has been the prevailing view for decades.  It is the basis on which immigration officials have interpreted the law.
> 
> Finally, the way the law is written, some laymen believe that one can be charged both criminally and civilly for the same offense.  They cannot.
> 
> When any law is unenforceable, it should be repealed.  And those exercising common sense will remember that employers treat workers as if they are commodities and goods.  They are numbers and to put it into the words of the 19th century economist, Otto T. Mallery:
> 
> “_If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky_.”
> 
> In short, you can regulate Liberty, but you cannot criminalize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 10USC246 is federal law; when is the right wing going to be legal to federal law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're going too far afield...
> 
> OTOH, this whole build the wall B.S. is the result of a time when the militia *WAS* manning the border and protecting private property.  National Socialists did not like that and preferred that private property owners *not* have the Right and the Duty to protect their own land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is the law, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is with you and this incessant need to make everything a _right wing _issue?  *The left has no monopoly on being right.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No kidding.   But I see the Left supporting sanctuary cities and states, in flagrant disregard for federal law.   Many if not most are for open borders, come on in and we'll take care of you.   We'll worry about whether you are a drug runner or terrorist later.   As for the drain on our public coffers , consider this from The Hill:
> 
> _The total cost of illegal immigration to federal, state and local taxpayers for the nation’s 12.5 million illegal aliens has increased to $116 billion annually, according to a new study released Wednesday by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The study, one of the most comprehensive to date on the issue, investigates the major contributing factors driving the high cost of illegal immigration, and compares that to the revenue state and local governments collect from illegal aliens.
> 
> The findings paint a much different picture than what open-border proponents and many in the mainstream media try to portray — that illegal immigration is somehow a net positive to the United States economy.
> 
> FAIR found that while illegal immigrants pay billions of dollars in taxes every year, they ultimately cost taxpayers more than seven times what they contribute. The study found that illegal immigrants pay almost $19 billion annually in combined federal, state and local taxes. This estimate is actually considerably higher than what many studies before this have suggested. However, the amount of taxes illegal immigrants pay is dwarfed by the considerable costs that they impose on American taxpayers: nearly $135 billion annually, creating a net deficit of $116 billion.
> 
> The majority of the costs to taxpayers, $89 billion (66 percent), are borne at the local and state level. This means that American taxpayers are forced to bear the costs of the federal government’s failure to secure our borders every time they pay school taxes, local tolls, sales and excise taxes. It also means that illegal migrants get a lot of benefits that they don’t pay for._
Click to expand...

the federal government has flagrant disregard for State laws and States' rights.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Humorme said:


> A birther law?  WTH is that?  Let me repeat post # 6 since you're obviously not going to read this thread:
> 
> You build a wall. You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing. So, anyway you kick them out along with their American born children. Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key. Problem solved. Right? Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not. You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate. They want to come _home_. Sorry guys, you can't keep them out. They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves. They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills. Now what do you do? I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with. I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.



Well,
Let me clarify.....
200 years ago, this nation benefited from immigration.  People came here to INTEGRATE and become Americans.   Today, that is rarely the case.   Too many come here simply to enjoy the luxuries they can get from the government via US taxpayers.

Today, with modern robotics and a dwindling need for a human workforce, there simply is no room in the sardine can.

So you have a choice....continue to allow open borders and illegals to come here and overload the system eventually causing a complete failure of that system for EVERYONE.....or......you come to your sense and realize that resources are not infinite and do whatever it takes to secure a border.   Period.    Whatever....it....takes.   Not this pussy ass BS in place now.

Immigration needs to change....and that does NOT mean to relax it so that more can arrive.
We need to realize that resources ARE scarce and that a nation and it's people have limits.
Our military is already suffering, homelessness in the USA is rising to epic levels, major cities are falling into bankruptcy......expenditures on welfare for non citizens and their US born children is soaring..causing Traditional American Children to suffer so they can prosper.
Look at the US's Debt to GDP ratio.   Even a fool can see trouble ahead.  This CANNOT be sustained.   Our infrastructure will suffer, or our military will suffer or our quality of life will suffer....or ALL of the above.   Is that a good thing in your opinion?

What more proof does any intelligent being need?
Sure, we'd LOVE to save and heal the world.    But it's *never* gonna happen.

BOTTOM LINE
Resources are scarce and limited....if we continue to pretend they are not we are destined to decline rapidly and severely.


----------



## task0778

Coyote said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know!   Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it.   Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards.   Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge!   The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!
> 
> 
> 
> Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.
Click to expand...


No credible evidence that they aren't either, such evidence is pretty hard to come by don't you think?   Are you seriously denying that a major reason why democrats want open borders is so they can get more votes?   An ABC poll taken a few years ago said that 80% of Americans support stricter border security to reduce illegal immigration.   Why else would the democratic party take a stance in opposition to that many people?   Another poll  found that 80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with.   And yet so many democrats support sanctuary cities and states.   Why?   Knowing the high costs to our gov't at every level?    Out of the goodness of their hearts?   Sorry, not buying that.   It's because it's a political weapon and because they believe it will expand their political base.


----------



## Humorme

task0778 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know!   Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it.   Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards.   Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge!   The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!
> 
> 
> 
> Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No credible evidence that they aren't either, such evidence is pretty hard to come by don't you think?   Are you seriously denying that a major reason why democrats want open borders is so they can get more votes?   An ABC poll taken a few years ago said that 80% of Americans support stricter border security to reduce illegal immigration.   Why else would the democratic party take a stance in opposition to that many people?   Another poll  found that 80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with.   And yet so many democrats support sanctuary cities and states.   Why?   Knowing the high costs to our gov't at every level?    Out of the goodness of their hearts?   Sorry, not buying that.   It's because it's a political weapon and because they believe it will expand their political base.
Click to expand...


Your poll would not reflect that even if they were polling people at a KKK rally.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for those sanctuary cities and states that openly flout that law for purely political purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why, really, does the anti-immigrant lobby demand that immigration laws be enforced above any other laws?  And why do they suggest that improper entry cases be treated like felonies?  You don't think that is politics?
> 
> If they demanded that the drug laws be enforced to the degree they demand immigration laws be enforced, you would not have any drug problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first offense for improper entry is a federal criminal misdemeanor, the second offense is a federal criminal felony. No, it's not politics, it's actual law. SMFH
> 
> Blame the local/state leaders telling LEO not to police it when the locals want it policed. It is the politicians placing the priority on the crime. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Commerce Clause; there is no Prohibition or drug war clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We also have a foreign relations clause. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no power to Prohibit in our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...


Yes there is.  You're lying and you know it.


----------



## Humorme

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> A birther law?  WTH is that?  Let me repeat post # 6 since you're obviously not going to read this thread:
> 
> You build a wall. You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "_illegal aliens_" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing. So, anyway you kick them out along with their American born children. Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key. Problem solved. Right? Wrong.
> 
> The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not. You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate. They want to come _home_. Sorry guys, you can't keep them out. They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)
> 
> So, they start coming here in droves. They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills. Now what do you do? I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.
> 
> You can give me all that "_open border_" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with. I do have well reasoned responses for you, *IF* we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.
Click to expand...


What was meant by quoting me and not posting something of your own?


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why, really, does the anti-immigrant lobby demand that immigration laws be enforced above any other laws?  And why do they suggest that improper entry cases be treated like felonies?  You don't think that is politics?
> 
> If they demanded that the drug laws be enforced to the degree they demand immigration laws be enforced, you would not have any drug problem.
> 
> 
> 
> The first offense for improper entry is a federal criminal misdemeanor, the second offense is a federal criminal felony. No, it's not politics, it's actual law. SMFH
> 
> Blame the local/state leaders telling LEO not to police it when the locals want it policed. It is the politicians placing the priority on the crime. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Commerce Clause; there is no Prohibition or drug war clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We also have a foreign relations clause. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no power to Prohibit in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there is.  You're lying and you know it.
Click to expand...

No, there isn't.  It was repealed as a Bad idea, last millennium.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

To recap the facts:

There is no such thing as a ‘sanctuary city/state’ all state and local jurisdictions cooperate with Federal immigration authorities when requested to do so.

The Federal government cannot compel state and local jurisdictions to enforce Federal immigration law or compel state and local jurisdictions to allocate limited law enforcement resources to enforce Federal immigration law.

It is perfectly appropriate and lawful for local jurisdictions to elect to not allocate limited law enforcement resources to detain those suspected of being in violation of Federal immigration law.

That one might be undocumented does not mean he is ‘illegal.’

Those undocumented are entitled to a presumption of innocence and due process of the law.

Local jurisdictions that afford legal assistance to those undocumented seeking to establish refugee status are not affording ‘sanctuary’ to undocumented immigrants; indeed, they are complying with the 14th Amendment’s requirement that all persons in the United States are entitled to due process of the law.

The right’s hostility toward immigrants is the consequence of their bigotry and racism, as express by Trump, and an unwarranted fear of change and diversity.


----------



## Circe

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That one might be undocumented does not mean he is ‘illegal.’



Of course being an undocumented immigrant means he is illegal!! That's the very definition of an illegal alien. They all need to be caught and deported.

Leftists like you keep trying to define things out of existence, by telling us what we can't say.

Too bad. I say it's spinach and I say the hell with it, to quote Eloise. Build the Wall.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> To recap the facts:
> 
> There is no such thing as a ‘sanctuary city/state’ all state and local jurisdictions cooperate with Federal immigration authorities when requested to do so.
> 
> The Federal government cannot compel state and local jurisdictions to enforce Federal immigration law or compel state and local jurisdictions to allocate limited law enforcement resources to enforce Federal immigration law.
> 
> It is perfectly appropriate and lawful for local jurisdictions to elect to not allocate limited law enforcement resources to detain those suspected of being in violation of Federal immigration law.
> 
> That one might be undocumented does not mean he is ‘illegal.’
> 
> Those undocumented are entitled to a presumption of innocence and due process of the law.
> 
> Local jurisdictions that afford legal assistance to those undocumented seeking to establish refugee status are not affording ‘sanctuary’ to undocumented immigrants; indeed, they are complying with the 14th Amendment’s requirement that all persons in the United States are entitled to due process of the law.
> 
> The right’s hostility toward immigrants is the consequence of their bigotry and racism, as express by Trump, and an unwarranted fear of change and diversity.




Yeah right.....
All the terrorists attacks in France, all the rapes in Germany, the USA terrorist attacks.....MS-13....teens being murdered....drugs proliferating in our schools....

All perfectly acceptable to you.....
Imbecile.

Maybe when a drunken illegal slams head on into you, your children, or someone you care about, or maybe when a 12 year old Salvadoran illegal pops a cap in your skull for looking at him the wrong way.... then gets "deported" (meaning off the hook and free to return), maybe then you'll get it....at your last breath

Which of these people do YOU defend?    I think the answer is clear.


----------



## task0778

Humorme said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know!   Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it.   Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards.   Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge!   The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!
> 
> 
> 
> Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No credible evidence that they aren't either, such evidence is pretty hard to come by don't you think?   Are you seriously denying that a major reason why democrats want open borders is so they can get more votes?   An ABC poll taken a few years ago said that 80% of Americans support stricter border security to reduce illegal immigration.   Why else would the democratic party take a stance in opposition to that many people?   Another poll  found that 80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with.   And yet so many democrats support sanctuary cities and states.   Why?   Knowing the high costs to our gov't at every level?    Out of the goodness of their hearts?   Sorry, not buying that.   It's because it's a political weapon and because they believe it will expand their political base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your poll would not reflect that even if they were polling people at a KKK rally.
Click to expand...


Talk to the ABC News/Washington Post about the 1st poll, and Harvard-Harris about the 2nd one.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first offense for improper entry is a federal criminal misdemeanor, the second offense is a federal criminal felony. No, it's not politics, it's actual law. SMFH
> 
> Blame the local/state leaders telling LEO not to police it when the locals want it policed. It is the politicians placing the priority on the crime. SHRUG
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Commerce Clause; there is no Prohibition or drug war clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We also have a foreign relations clause. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no power to Prohibit in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there is.  You're lying and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, there isn't.  It was repealed as a Bad idea, last millennium.
Click to expand...


danielpalos, you've been proven wrong on this so many times it makes my head hurt.  You are the worst freaking troll on these boards and, fortunately, nobody with an IQ above their shoe size takes you seriously.

The *Unites States Constitution* expressly states:

"_No Bill of Attainder or *ex post facto Law shall be passed*_,"  

Article 1  Section 9  Clause 3

Rather than to be subjected to danielpalos attempts to filibuster and bullshit us ,let's define that term:

*"Overview*
_Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:
_

_Art 1, § 9_
_This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto._

_Art. 1 § 10. _
_This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto_."

Ex Post Facto

Cornell School of Law v. danielpalos.  danielpalos is blowing smoke.

If the child of an undocumented foreigner is issued a birth certificate, a National ID Card and / or a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "_Social Security Number_," they are a United States citizen.  You cannot uncitizen them by virtue of the above provision in the United States Constitution AND, according to Cornell (an accredited law school) ex post facto DOES prohibit Congress from passing a law that makes someone a criminal when what they did was legal at the time.

Sorry, but the damielpalos is *wrong* yet again.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

You are defending immigration.....
Without addressing the consequences......

In that respect...I could say the same thing you said about him.....


Humorme said:


> _danielpalos, you've been proven wrong on this so many times it makes my head hurt. You are the worst freaking troll on these boards and, fortunately, nobody with an IQ above their shoe size takes you seriously.
> _


_

And I thought YOU said this was to be a name-calling less discussion....yet there you go_


----------



## danielpalos

Circe said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> That one might be undocumented does not mean he is ‘illegal.’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course being an undocumented immigrant means he is illegal!! That's the very definition of an illegal alien. They all need to be caught and deported.
> 
> Leftists like you keep trying to define things out of existence, by telling us what we can't say.
> 
> Too bad. I say it's spinach and I say the hell with it, to quote Eloise. Build the Wall.
Click to expand...

the right wing loves to, "order up a bunch of socialism on a national basis", and then refuse to pay for it.  Vandals.


----------



## Humorme

task0778 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know!   Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it.   Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards.   Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge!   The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!
> 
> 
> 
> Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No credible evidence that they aren't either, such evidence is pretty hard to come by don't you think?   Are you seriously denying that a major reason why democrats want open borders is so they can get more votes?   An ABC poll taken a few years ago said that 80% of Americans support stricter border security to reduce illegal immigration.   Why else would the democratic party take a stance in opposition to that many people?   Another poll  found that 80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with.   And yet so many democrats support sanctuary cities and states.   Why?   Knowing the high costs to our gov't at every level?    Out of the goodness of their hearts?   Sorry, not buying that.   It's because it's a political weapon and because they believe it will expand their political base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your poll would not reflect that even if they were polling people at a KKK rally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk to the ABC News/Washington Post about the 1st poll, and Harvard-Harris about the 2nd one.
Click to expand...


You did not cite the poll

Polls don't vote, people do

People vote every day with the checkbooks, debit cards and the cash in their wallet.  They* WILLINGLY* hire, rent to, buy from, sell to, and otherwise do business with people who don't have human registration papers.  THAT is the only poll that matters in this context.


----------



## Humorme

Circe said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> That one might be undocumented does not mean he is ‘illegal.’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course being an undocumented immigrant means he is illegal!! That's the very definition of an illegal alien. They all need to be caught and deported.
> 
> Leftists like you keep trying to define things out of existence, by telling us what we can't say.
> 
> Too bad. I say it's spinach and I say the hell with it, to quote Eloise. Build the Wall.
Click to expand...


You are DEAD WRONG.  My main concern has nothing to do with so - called _"illegal aliens_"  It has to do with the fact that there is a presumption of innocence *NOT* a presumption that a person is guilty.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Humorme said:


> You are DEAD WRONG.  My main concern has nothing to do with so - called _"illegal aliens_"  It has to do with the fact that there is a presumption of innocence *NOT* a presumption that a person is guilty.




The INTENT of the 14th amendment was NOT to have open borders.
It's not even a matter of innocence.

jeez.

And you never addressed my post.  You simply asked why I quoted you.
I'm waiting for a reasonable and responsible reply........if you can come up with  one


----------



## Circe

Humorme said:


> [ My main concern has nothing to do with so - called _"illegal aliens_"  It has to do with the fact that there is a presumption of innocence *NOT* a presumption that a person is guilty.



If he's here illegally, he's an illegal. We can appropriately presume guilt if he has just run across the Rio Grande and his shirt's all wet.

You can't talk your way out of this. Illegals are illegal. Duh.


----------



## Humorme

BasicHumanUnit said:


> You are defending immigration.....
> Without addressing the consequences......
> 
> In that respect...I could say the same thing you said about him.....
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> _danielpalos, you've been proven wrong on this so many times it makes my head hurt. You are the worst freaking troll on these boards and, fortunately, nobody with an IQ above their shoe size takes you seriously._
> 
> 
> 
> _
> And I thought YOU said this was to be a name-calling less discussion....yet there you go_
Click to expand...


danielpalos and I have exchanged this disagreement for *thousands* of posts.  Filibustering and trying to win on the basis of a popularity contest is immoral and dishonest.  Of course she knows it.

What I'm for is Liberty and Freedom.  Your view has *NO* basis in fact.  What you and I are getting ready to engage in is way the Hell off topic.  

Bottom line:  We've had this immigration situation since the first colonists set foot on this soil.  It did not prevent us from becoming the greatest nation on the face of this earth and if you read this thread, you will see that the situation is a self regulating one.  When the American people are doing good, they hire the undocumented foreigner; when times are bad or we're feeling good toward a fellow American, we help them instead.

As for your *LIE *about immigration, I have said it how many times... *YOU CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF ALL MEN VERSUS THE PRIVILEGES / BENEFITS / IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP???*


----------



## Humorme

Circe said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ My main concern has nothing to do with so - called _"illegal aliens_"  It has to do with the fact that there is a presumption of innocence *NOT* a presumption that a person is guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he's here illegally, he's an illegal. We can appropriately presume guilt if he has just run across the Rio Grande and his shirt's all wet.
> 
> You can't talk your way out of this. Illegals are illegal. Duh.
Click to expand...


You don't know what you're talking about.  If you catch someone at the border, you ship them home.  If they are here, they are presumed to be innocent AND IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO *BE HERE*.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Circe said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ My main concern has nothing to do with so - called _"illegal aliens_"  It has to do with the fact that there is a presumption of innocence *NOT* a presumption that a person is guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he's here illegally, he's an illegal. We can appropriately presume guilt if he has just run across the Rio Grande and his shirt's all wet.
> 
> You can't talk your way out of this. Illegals are illegal. Duh.
Click to expand...


Well....that's where the debate on immigration gets heated.
The 14th says if a person is born in the US, they are a US citizen.
200 or more years ago that had an entirely different set of circumstances than it does today.

So in one respect he's correct.   Unfortunately.

However, clearly, it was not the INTENT of the 14th to have open borders of for that ot be abused as it is today.
Our sovereignty as a nation is now threatened.   What's more important....allowing as many immigrants as as possible....or surviving as a nation?

Is that a difficult question to answer?   Shouldn't be at all....yet some here are stymied.


----------



## danielpalos

Circe said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ My main concern has nothing to do with so - called _"illegal aliens_"  It has to do with the fact that there is a presumption of innocence *NOT* a presumption that a person is guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he's here illegally, he's an illegal. We can appropriately presume guilt if he has just run across the Rio Grande and his shirt's all wet.
> 
> You can't talk your way out of this. Illegals are illegal. Duh.
Click to expand...

10USC246 is also federal law.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Humorme said:


> danielpalos and I have exchanged this disagreement for *thousands* of posts.  Filibustering and trying to win on the basis of a popularity contest is immoral and dishonest.  Of course she knows it.
> 
> What I'm for is Liberty and Freedom.  Your view has *NO* basis in fact.  What you and I are getting ready to engage in is way the Hell off topic.
> 
> Bottom line:  We've had this immigration situation since the first colonists set foot on this soil.  It did not prevent us from becoming the greatest nation on the face of this earth and if you read this thread, you will see that the situation is a self regulating one.  When the American people are doing good, they hire the undocumented foreigner; when times are bad or we're feeling good toward a fellow American, we help them instead.
> 
> As for your *LIE *about immigration, I have said it how many times... *YOU CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF ALL MEN VERSUS THE PRIVILEGES / BENEFITS / IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP???*



If you want a private discussion....exchange phone numbers.   Otherwise deal with it.

You are only partially correct.

The 14th says if a person is born in the US, they are a US citizen.
200 or more years ago that had an entirely different set of circumstances than it does today.

So in one respect you're correct.   Unfortunately.  But you ignore the INTENT.   In legal terms, intent is as much a part of the law as the written word.  ANY good defense or prosecuting attorney knows that.  Its what most cases are won or lost over.

However, clearly, it was not the INTENT of the 14th to have open borders or for that to be abused as it is today.
Our sovereignty as a nation is now threatened.   What's more important....allowing as many immigrants as as possible....or surviving as a nation?

Is that a difficult question to answer?   Shouldn't be at all....yet some here are stymied.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are defending immigration.....
> Without addressing the consequences......
> 
> In that respect...I could say the same thing you said about him.....
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> _danielpalos, you've been proven wrong on this so many times it makes my head hurt. You are the worst freaking troll on these boards and, fortunately, nobody with an IQ above their shoe size takes you seriously._
> 
> 
> 
> _
> And I thought YOU said this was to be a name-calling less discussion....yet there you go_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos and I have exchanged this disagreement for *thousands* of posts.  Filibustering and trying to win on the basis of a popularity contest is immoral and dishonest.  Of course she knows it.
> 
> What I'm for is Liberty and Freedom.  Your view has *NO* basis in fact.  What you and I are getting ready to engage in is way the Hell off topic.
> 
> Bottom line:  We've had this immigration situation since the first colonists set foot on this soil.  It did not prevent us from becoming the greatest nation on the face of this earth and if you read this thread, you will see that the situation is a self regulating one.  When the American people are doing good, they hire the undocumented foreigner; when times are bad or we're feeling good toward a fellow American, we help them instead.
> 
> As for your *LIE *about immigration, I have said it how many times... *YOU CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF ALL MEN VERSUS THE PRIVILEGES / BENEFITS / IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP???*
Click to expand...

you are just for socialism on a national basis and want to refuse to pay for it.


----------



## Circe

Humorme said:


> You don't know what you're talking about.  If you catch someone at the border, you ship them home.  If they are here, they are presumed to be innocent AND IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO *BE HERE*.



Certainly I know what I'm talking about. You are trying to snarl something obvious in a trap of words that favors the leftwing, open-borders side, but not doing very well at it since no one is likely to get confused about this issue. Of course it is illegal for an illegal to be here: THAT is exactly why we call them illegal!

If you were right, Immigration wouldn't be chasing illegals around 7-11 stores, you know. But they are chasing them there and elsewhere. This reminds me of people who want to make homosexuality "normal" by using words, words, words --- when if it were normal, after all, we wouldn't be talking about it! By constantly talking about it, the leftists disprove their own contention.

Same thing here. If they weren't illegal, we wouldn't call them illegals. You are trying to get us NOT to call them illegals anymore with the hope of that somehow fixing the problem that they come into the country illegally, like calling retarded people mentally handicapped or special needs will somehow fix the problem with their poor mental ability and make it go away.

Hope on, hope ever.


----------



## task0778

Humorme said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ My main concern has nothing to do with so - called _"illegal aliens_"  It has to do with the fact that there is a presumption of innocence *NOT* a presumption that a person is guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he's here illegally, he's an illegal. We can appropriately presume guilt if he has just run across the Rio Grande and his shirt's all wet.
> 
> You can't talk your way out of this. Illegals are illegal. Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know what you're talking about.  If you catch someone at the border, you ship them home.  If they are here, they are presumed to be innocent AND IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO *BE HERE*.
Click to expand...


If they entered this country then they have broken a federal law, i.e., committed an illegal act.   Hence they are already guilty of something.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Circe said:


> Certainly I know what I'm talking about. You are trying to snarl something obvious in a trap of words that favors the leftwing, open-borders side, but not doing very well at it since no one is likely to get confused about this issue. Of course it is illegal for an illegal to be here: THAT is exactly why we call them illegal!
> 
> If you were right, Immigration wouldn't be chasing illegals around 7-11 stores, you know. But they are chasing them there and elsewhere. This reminds me of people who want to make homosexuality "normal" by using words, words, words --- when if it were normal, after all, we wouldn't be talking about it! By constantly talking about it, the leftists disprove their own contention.
> 
> Same thing here. If they weren't illegal, we wouldn't call them illegals. You are trying to get us NOT to call them illegals anymore with the hope of that somehow fixing the problem that they come into the country illegally, like calling retarded people mentally handicapped or special needs will somehow fix the problem with their poor mental ability and make it go away.
> 
> Hope on, hope ever.



He's completely avoiding the INTENT of the law....for his convenience.     He keep throwing in your face that they ARE legal citizens (the children of illegals) because of the 14th and in a purely abstract sense, he is correct.

Where he falls short (and always will) is the fact that this was never the intent of the 14th.   Times have changed and circumstances are vastly different than they were then.  Immigration today causes a real and present danger to American lives and our nations existence.    The "American culture" is already lost forever and I won't judge that good or bad......but I will say that having a nation of uncontrolled borders is a suicide path for the nation ultimately.


----------



## danielpalos

Circe said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you're talking about.  If you catch someone at the border, you ship them home.  If they are here, they are presumed to be innocent AND IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO *BE HERE*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly I know what I'm talking about. You are trying to snarl something obvious in a trap of words that favors the leftwing, open-borders side, but not doing very well at it since no one is likely to get confused about this issue. Of course it is illegal for an illegal to be here: THAT is exactly why we call them illegal!
> 
> If you were right, Immigration wouldn't be chasing illegals around 7-11 stores, you know. But they are chasing them there and elsewhere. This reminds me of people who want to make homosexuality "normal" by using words, words, words --- when if it were normal, after all, we wouldn't be talking about it! By constantly talking about it, the leftists disprove their own contention.
> 
> Same thing here. If they weren't illegal, we wouldn't call them illegals. You are trying to get us NOT to call them illegals anymore with the hope of that somehow fixing the problem that they come into the country illegally, like calling retarded people mentally handicapped or special needs will somehow fix the problem with their poor mental ability and make it go away.
> 
> Hope on, hope ever.
Click to expand...

Only illegals are illegal to 10USC246.


----------



## Coyote

task0778 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know!   Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it.   Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards.   Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge!   The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!
> 
> 
> 
> Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No credible evidence that they aren't either, such evidence is pretty hard to come by don't you think?   Are you seriously denying that a major reason why democrats want open borders is so they can get more votes?   An ABC poll taken a few years ago said that 80% of Americans support stricter border security to reduce illegal immigration.   Why else would the democratic party take a stance in opposition to that many people?   Another poll  found that 80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with.   And yet so many democrats support sanctuary cities and states.   Why?   Knowing the high costs to our gov't at every level?    Out of the goodness of their hearts?   Sorry, not buying that.   It's because it's a political weapon and because they believe it will expand their political base.
Click to expand...



You don't prove negatives.  It's up to the people claiming that they are to prove it and they have yet to do so beyond a handful of small cases that are mostly accidental.  I would much rather see law enforcement dollars spent on mitigating serious crime - like opiod abuse, drug cartels and trafficking, murder, rape and gang violence.  As I said before - I have no issue with illegals who have committed violent crimes being given an expedited boot.

Many of those same polls also show strong support for DACA and a path to legal citizenship.


----------



## Coyote

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is little to no credible evidence Trump is a racist...but you still believe it....why?
Click to expand...


I base it on his own words.


----------



## Humorme

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ My main concern has nothing to do with so - called _"illegal aliens_"  It has to do with the fact that there is a presumption of innocence *NOT* a presumption that a person is guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he's here illegally, he's an illegal. We can appropriately presume guilt if he has just run across the Rio Grande and his shirt's all wet.
> 
> You can't talk your way out of this. Illegals are illegal. Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well....that's where the debate on immigration gets heated.
> The 14th says if a person is born in the US, they are a US citizen.
> 200 or more years ago that had an entirely different set of circumstances than it does today.
> 
> So in one respect he's correct.   Unfortunately.
> 
> However, clearly, it was not the INTENT of the 14th to have open borders of for that ot be abused as it is today.
> Our sovereignty as a nation is now threatened.   What's more important....allowing as many immigrants as as possible....or surviving as a nation?
> 
> Is that a difficult question to answer?   Shouldn't be at all....yet some here are stymied.
Click to expand...


We can keep going round and round like a rodent on a treadmill *OR* you can choose to acknowledge (even if you disagree) what I said.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was *illegally ratified*.  It does not matter what the original intent was.  It was illegally ratified and deliberately misinterpreted.  *AND*, adding insult to injury, the United States Supreme Court claims that they are the final arbiters of what the law is.

So, you're not arguing against me.  You are arguing against* facts*.  And the fact is, America was founded for the benefit of white Christians.  Our system of government, our foundational principles, our jurisprudence, our values, our sense of right and wrong were the products of white Christians.  

The entire build the wall - deport 'em all plan is the work of a former neo - nazi turned KKK member who had a lot of people believing that we could reclaim our cultural / racial heritage with the nutty wall idea.

What they are too stupid to understand is that I fully understand their concern.  I'm just not willing to give up my own Freedoms and Liberties on the delusional belief that we're going to reclaim this country - and somehow cater to the very people the white extremists have denounced for the last 225 + years.  The occasional token black person swayed by an easily disproven economic argument does not count.

The sovereignty of our nation is threatened by the people too ignorant to examine the fact that there is a difference between the *unalienable* Rights of all men versus the privileges / benefits / immunities of citizens.  They would destroy America on the installment plan under the delusion that we can apply the immigration laws to keep people out for no apparent reason.

If you buy into the notion that we are all equal, blah, blah, blah then you don't have a credible argument in order to keep other people out.  It is not the migration of people that threatens sovereignty.  It is the absolute nonsensical view that we must make citizens out of anyone that washes up on our shores.


----------



## Humorme

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are DEAD WRONG.  My main concern has nothing to do with so - called _"illegal aliens_"  It has to do with the fact that there is a presumption of innocence *NOT* a presumption that a person is guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The INTENT of the 14th amendment was NOT to have open borders.
> It's not even a matter of innocence.
> 
> jeez.
> 
> And you never addressed my post.  You simply asked why I quoted you.
> I'm waiting for a reasonable and responsible reply........if you can come up with  one
Click to expand...


My words you quoted show up in the post.  IF there was anything else, it does not show up in your post.  I told you that.  That being the case, what do you want a response to?


----------



## Coyote

Poll: Most support path to legal status for illegal immigrants
_Nearly two-thirds of Americans say there should be a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants, according to a new poll, and only 26 percent think stopping border crossings should be the top immigration priority.

Sixty percent say a pathway for legal residency should be the government’s immigration priority in the CNN/ORC survey released Friday.

*Thirteen percent said deporting illegal immigrants should instead be immigration priority No. 1.* One percent had no opinion.

Pollsters report *58 percent worry deportation efforts will go too far *by deporting people who have not committed serious crimes, compared to 40 percent who fear deportation efforts would be too lenient, letting dangerous criminals remain in the U.S. untouched. Two percent had no response.

*Twenty-seven percent said the government should deport all illegal immigrants, while by 71 percent disagree*._​
Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants
_The poll finds a record-high *83 percent of voters support setting up a system for all illegal immigrants who are currently working in the country to become legal residents*, up nine points since last year. Just 14 percent say “deport as many as possible,” down from a high of 30 percent in July 2015.

There is rare partisan agreement on all fronts.

Democrats (66 percent), Republicans (60 percent) and independents (59 percent) all agree it is important Congress work on Dreamer legislation. Partisans are also in sync on granting work permits and U.S. citizenship to these individuals, as majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents favor both actions.

 Moreover, 63 percent of Trump voters favor granting Dreamers citizenship.

Setting up a system to legalize undocumented immigrants working in the U.S. also receives bipartisan support: most Democrats (95 percent legalize vs. 4 percent deport), Republicans (69-28 percent) and independents (82-13 percent) want legalization to happen.

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...y-statistic-do-80-percent-americans-oppose-s/

A survey from Harvard–Harris Poll provided exclusively to The Hill found that *80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents *the illegal immigrants they come into contact with.

The Harvard–Harris Poll survey found *strong support for an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, with 77 percent saying they support comprehensive immigration reform against only 23 percent who oppose*.

“While there is broad support for comprehensive immigration reform, there is overwhelming opposition to sanctuary cities,” said Harvard–Harris co-director Mark Penn. “The public wants honest immigrants treated fairly and those who commit crimes deported and that's very clear from the data.”_​
And...an interesting analysis in reference to the above poll specifically but can be applied to all polls: Do 80 percent of Americans oppose sanctuary cities?
_One of our readers asked us to investigate. We decided not to put the 80 percent finding to the Truth-O-Meter, because we don’t doubt the reliability of the poll itself. But questions phrased differently can show dramatically different results.

*All told, the finding is a case study in how poll results can be seized by advocates for one side of an issue -- and how some of the nuances in the questions and the answers can be lost in the hubbub*.

*A closer look at the questions*
 The question in the poll that attracted the most attention -- certainly from the political right -- was this one: "Should cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes be required to turn them over to immigration authorities?" On this question, 80 percent of respondents said yes.

But as we looked into the question, we noticed a couple things.

One was that, despite the blaring headlines about sanctuary cities, *the question being asked didn’t actually use the words "sanctuary cities." The other concerned words that the question did use -- "arrest" and "crimes."*

To understand why such wording choices matter -- and why they could potentially change the results of the poll -- we first need to review what the term "sanctuary city" actually means.

*The question wording*
The specific wording used to ask any poll question is always important. It’s not even necessarily a comparison of "good wording" vs."bad wording" -- if a question is asked a certain way, it could nudge respondents to answer in one direction.


*In this case, respondents were asked about "crimes." To many, that could bring to mind "violent crimes," especially when paired with the term "arrest."*

 But the experts we spoke to said the jurisdictions described as sanctuary cities *don’t simply let murderers, rapists, armed robbers and other people they arrest for violent crimes go free.* Not only would federal immigration officials be notified, but the violent crimes they were charged with would be prosecuted.

Instead, where the rubber hits the road with sanctuary cities is with lesser, non-violent offenses, even down to a broken tail light -- or simply any interaction with police, such as an undocumented immigrant becoming a happenstance witness to a crime. These are the cases in which police in sanctuary cities would typically be trained to refrain from asking for immigration status or informing federal immigration officials.

*And this nuance is not captured by the question that garnered 80 percent support in the Harvard-Harris poll -- as well as the lion’s share of headlines.*

"Question wording always affects responses," said Steven S. Smith, a political scientist and pollster at Washington University in St. Louis. "‘Arrest … for crimes’ certainly primes the respondent to think that the person is dangerous and therefore should be a high priority in immigration law enforcement."

Karlyn Bowman, a polling analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, noted that there is little history of past polling on the issue of sanctuary cities. *But she did uncover one poll released a few days after the Harvard-Harris poll that seems to back up the idea that different wording can substantially change the result.*

 The poll, conducted by Quinnipiac University and released on Feb. 23, asked, "Thinking about people who have immigrated to the U.S. illegally, who do you think should be deported: Should no illegal immigrants be deported, only illegal immigrants that have committed serious crimes, only illegal immigrants that have committed any crime, or should all illegal immigrants be deported?"

The results: Only 3 percent said no illegal immigrants should be deported, and 19 percent said all illegal immigrants should be deported. But 53 percent of respondents said deportations should only be done for "serious crimes," compared to 22 percent for "any crime."

*That’s not just a plurality -- it’s a majority. And that tells a different story than the Internet headlines.*_​


----------



## Humorme

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos and I have exchanged this disagreement for *thousands* of posts.  Filibustering and trying to win on the basis of a popularity contest is immoral and dishonest.  Of course she knows it.
> 
> What I'm for is Liberty and Freedom.  Your view has *NO* basis in fact.  What you and I are getting ready to engage in is way the Hell off topic.
> 
> Bottom line:  We've had this immigration situation since the first colonists set foot on this soil.  It did not prevent us from becoming the greatest nation on the face of this earth and if you read this thread, you will see that the situation is a self regulating one.  When the American people are doing good, they hire the undocumented foreigner; when times are bad or we're feeling good toward a fellow American, we help them instead.
> 
> As for your *LIE *about immigration, I have said it how many times... *YOU CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF ALL MEN VERSUS THE PRIVILEGES / BENEFITS / IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP???*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want a private discussion....exchange phone numbers.   Otherwise deal with it.
> 
> You are only partially correct.
> 
> The 14th says if a person is born in the US, they are a US citizen.
> 200 or more years ago that had an entirely different set of circumstances than it does today.
> 
> So in one respect you're correct.   Unfortunately.  But you ignore the INTENT.   In legal terms, intent is as much a part of the law as the written word.  ANY good defense or prosecuting attorney knows that.  Its what most cases are won or lost over.
> 
> However, clearly, it was not the INTENT of the 14th to have open borders or for that to be abused as it is today.
> Our sovereignty as a nation is now threatened.   What's more important....allowing as many immigrants as as possible....or surviving as a nation?
> 
> Is that a difficult question to answer?   Shouldn't be at all....yet some here are stymied.
Click to expand...


 As per your post:

The United States Constitution is ultimately interpreted by the *United States Supreme Court*.  Unless you see the return of Jesus Christ, their decisions may as well be etched in stone.

Your *ONLY* recourse if you don't like the 14th is to admit it is fraudulent OR work to repeal it.

How many immigrants come and go should be a decision we make as a nation and *NOT* left to the politicians.  If you don't like them being here, don't hire them.  Don't do business with people that do hire them.  Don't sell to them; don't buy from them.  Be responsible for what *YOU* believe in. 

What some of you do not understand is that the ultimate *POLICE STATE* you're building is far more dangerous to the sovereignty of this country.  It is dangerous to our Liberties and Freedoms.


----------



## Slyhunter

Humorme said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my personal opinion...it's complicated.
> 
> No, I don't believe in "open boarders" - we need a good immigration and border policy to protect our country.
> 
> I think it's important to have a good border security policy.  I don't support a physical wall because of it's effect on the natural migrations of wildlife and on border communities.  But there are many other good ways of improving security that don't involve a wall.
> 
> When it comes to those already here - I am not that concerned unless they commit a violent crime.  Then, upon conviction (and jail time) - boot them out.  Otherwise I see it as a lesser category of crime...like trespassing.  I would rather spend law enforcement dollars on violent crimes - murder, rape, gang violence, drug violence.
> 
> I guess I don't understand why an illegal immigrant should be in the same category as a violent rapist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if Joe Illegal can sneak across the border tomorrow,then he becomes part of the already here category and gets de facto legal status?  I think it sends a mixed message to to have “border security” at the border but no means of enforcement within the borders once someone manages to breach that security.
> 
> I agree that it is a lessor category of crime than rape and murder and such.   Usually Trespassers are at minimum made to leave when they are caught trespassing.
> 
> That being said, if we stop giving those here illegally de facto legal status by allowing them access to things like public schools, driver’s licenses, jobs (not using e-verify), etc then there will be much less incentive for new illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you deny things like access to public schools, welfare, and other government benefits, what is your problem with undocumented foreigners?
> 
> At the end of the day, you are still insinuating that someone must be a citizen or on the path to citizenship in order to be able to participate in the free market.  Here's the real bottom line problem:
> 
> Those who are on this border security kick cannot differentiate between citizenship and the Rights of every human.  When I hire people around my place, if they've done work for a neighbor; if I like their prices / terms; if I get the warm and fuzzy feeling, then they get the job.  No matter what laws they pass, that is never going to change.
> 
> If you want people to come here _"legally_,"  let them come in at a border checkpoint.  Issue Worker IDs if necessary.  But, this dishonest and totalitarian B.S. of visas that are capped and endless delays just to enter the United States is idiotic, pointless, and tyrannical.  It makes a mockery of the view that our country is open to anyone.  You can't have the Statue of Liberty welcoming people into the country on one hand and then making it impossible for people to come here.
> 
> The bottom line is that* YOU* would not allow a worthless piece of paper, issued by a tyrannical government deter *YOU* from taking a job to feed your family.  *YOU* would not allow Donald Trump to tell you that you couldn't go to Mexico and take a job there in order to feed your family - AND have to forfeit your citizenship here just to keep a roof over your family's head.
> 
> You can sugar-coat it any way you want, but the nutty wall idea came from people who want the United States to be an all white country.  I'd have more respect for them and their supporters if they would simply quit trying to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  A lot of undocumented workers are being discovered today that have been here for twenty years or more.  They have gotten an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, paid the taxes, and obeyed all the other laws.  *They did not become citizens.  They may have had opportunities to become citizens and they passed on it*. What's the real problem?  Where is the security issue?  Why should anyone stand in any line in order to exercise the Rights of Liberty?  Guest Workers don't need to be standing in a line with people wanting to become citizens.  Guest Workers shouldn't even be on a list to become a citizen.
> 
> Look, if you have a problem with those people working the jobs, then *boycott* businesses that employ an inordinate amount of foreigners. I see people offering jobs to Muslims, Jews, etc. and if I don't see some American faces, I *boycott *the business.  I don't try to tell that business who to hire nor what to pay.  If foreigners come here *properly* and they don't assimilate, I don't give two hoots in Hell what their story is.  They are no better than the paper-less foreigner that comes here and blends in.  Denying one employer the opportunity to hire a foreigner by making them stand in a line that ought to be for people seeking citizenship (and even those ought to be able to come and wait if they have the financial ability to be here) is discriminatory - and unconstitutional - as it denies the employer the equal protection of the laws.  If you don't like foreigners, then let the market decide.  If Americans don't want them here, don't hire them, don't sell to them, and quit shopping at businesses that employ them.  But, don't assume you have the Right to stand in the way of the Liberties of your fellow American NOR the foreigner who takes advantage of an opportunity *willingly* offered.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with Race.
You just proved you've never watched this.


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85% of our crops will rot in the field without illegally migrant workers. They deserve sanctuary in all 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure where got the 50% but I know farmers that owns very large farms in Delano, Bakersfield and Arizona area and most or all are Illegals. Some has green cards but they are all Hispanics.
> Machine operators are also illegals.
> 
> Wages rise on California farms. Americans still don't want the job
> 
> To keep crops from rotting in the field, farmers say they need Trump to let in more temporary workers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well which is it, most or all are illegals, yet some have green cards? I'll bet some are even US Citizens. SMFH So what if they are all Hispanic in Southern CA and AZ. PEW research gave the % number, its easy enough to look up.
> 
> As to your second link, the farmers need to use the tools they have allowed for them, namely the H2A visa, they choose not to use it. If they don't like it then they need to lobby to get it changed, but until it is they are stuck with using it, or take the chance at being caught if they knowingly hire illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect. Some has green cards that’s been here for decades but the percentage is extremely very low. The % you are talking about doesn’t reflect the reality. Farmers don’t have much choices but use the available labor they have for several decades.
> H2A visa is more expensive than using the illegals because you have to corral them making sure they don’t escape, provide food and housing and some forms of clothing. Why bother when you can hire existing people?
> Some of these H2A people coming from Asia don’t even show up to their assigned sponsors. They just disappear from the airport.
> 
> A long time ago maybe 10 years or so kids in my neighborhood cuts grass, clean pools and wash cars etc. Today not a single one of these kids can be seen except Mexicans just like my gardener for 5 years. I pay him $145 a month to maintain my lawn 3 times a month no more than 45 minutes each time. Even if we as a whole want to hire Americans. Where are they?
> 
> I know several people that own home care where they converted their houses to take care old people here in Ca, Ar, and Hawaii. No a single white or black Americans but ONLY Mexicans or Asians are available making from $12 to $18/hour with overtime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect? Yet you post no link for your support as to percentages, just your opinion based non-sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most illegals do not work in agriculture — only about 4 percent of the illegal-immigrant population is employed in farming. In no state is farming the predominant occupation of illegal immigrants; even in places such as California, where labor-intensive fruit-and-vegetable farming attracts a relatively large illegal workforce, the main occupations of illegals are in hospitality (restaurants and hotels), services, and transportation. Likewise, most of the people working in agriculture are not illegals: *The great majority of the farming workforce is composed of legal workers,* with *illegals constituting about one-fourth of the total.* Illegals make up a larger share of the farm workforce than they do any other labor pool, but they remain a small though not inconsequential minority of workers.
> 
> Read more at: The Specter of the $20 Avocado
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legal workers includes, H2A workers, LPR's, and citizens. SMFH
> 
> How about this from PEW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although they were 5% of the overall workforce in 2012, unauthorized immigrants represent a notably higher share of workers in some industries where they are concentrated. *They were 16% of employees in the agriculture industry*, 12% of employees in the construction industry and 9% of employees in the leisure and hospitality industry.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrants are particularly concentrated in some subsets of each major industry. In 2012, they represented 24% of workers in the landscaping industry, 23% of those in private household employment, 20% of those in apparel manufacturing, 20% in crop production, 19% in the dry cleaning and laundry industry and 19% of those in building maintenance.
> 
> 
> Chapter 2: Industries of Unauthorized Immigrant Workers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, like I previously stated, they are not a majority workforce in any industry in the US.
> 
> Where I live the lawn care guys are all white with the exception of the commercial landscapers that do the city contracts. As for in home health care, I see Asians predominantly, whites and blacks. House cleaning services I see both Hispanic and White, in fact I have a white US Citizen that comes and cleans my house weekly. SHRUG
> 
> Just because you see something in specific areas doesn't mean it is that way everywhere.
Click to expand...


Very funny. 
Again I post based on experience and reality. 
I asked you to provide me the locations you are talking about. Where is that? 

I do not need to show you a link to support what I’m saying. So if I know a large farmer owners In California and Arizona. what made you think the next door farmers are doing any different? 
I already prove to you that H2A is a joke and not cost effective. 
I also used Molly maids to clean both of my houses and they are illegals from Cuba and Mexico. 

Where you live? That’s funny. You are giving me your very limited experience. How many health care owners that you know one? How about If i will tell you about 40 home care owners located here in California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada and Hawaii. 

Funny. I never said illegals are the majority of workforce in America.


----------



## JoeMoma

Coyote said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know!   Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it.   Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards.   Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge!   The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!
> 
> 
> 
> Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.
Click to expand...

That’s why I didn’t say in the short term.  If the millions currently here are given a path to citizenship then they will be able to vote.  Isn’t that what is currently being hashed out with DACA?  I am not necessarily against giving the dreamers legal status.  I am against giving millions a path to citizenship ahead of those that follow the rules and immigrant legally.  And if the millions that are currently here are granted a path to citizenship, we are going to simply repeat the cycle started by Reagan when amnesty was granted in the 80s if we don’t take measures to secure the border.


----------



## Coyote

JoeMoma said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know!   Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it.   Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards.   Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge!   The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!
> 
> 
> 
> Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s why I didn’t say in the short term.  If the millions currently here are given a path to citizenship then they will be able to vote.  Isn’t that what is currently being hashed out with DACA?  I am not necessarily against giving the dreamers legal status.  I am against giving millions a path to citizenship ahead of those that follow the rules and immigrant legally.  And if the millions that are currently here are granted a path to citizenship, we are going to simply repeat the cycle started by Reagan when amnesty was granted in the 80s if we don’t take measures to secure the border.
Click to expand...



I can see your point though I feel strongly about giving dreamers legal status, I think something in line of work permits for the others would be a better solution.


----------



## JoeMoma

Humorme said:


> The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was *illegally ratified*. It does not matter what the original intent was. It was illegally ratified and deliberately misinterpreted. *AND*, adding insult to injury, the United States Supreme Court claims t


That’s not the consensus of the United States Government.  Like it or not, that’s the government that is currently in charge here.  I personally believe that the federal government has expanded its laws beyond the powers enumerated by the constitution; however, I have to live in reality.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure where got the 50% but I know farmers that owns very large farms in Delano, Bakersfield and Arizona area and most or all are Illegals. Some has green cards but they are all Hispanics.
> Machine operators are also illegals.
> 
> Wages rise on California farms. Americans still don't want the job
> 
> To keep crops from rotting in the field, farmers say they need Trump to let in more temporary workers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well which is it, most or all are illegals, yet some have green cards? I'll bet some are even US Citizens. SMFH So what if they are all Hispanic in Southern CA and AZ. PEW research gave the % number, its easy enough to look up.
> 
> As to your second link, the farmers need to use the tools they have allowed for them, namely the H2A visa, they choose not to use it. If they don't like it then they need to lobby to get it changed, but until it is they are stuck with using it, or take the chance at being caught if they knowingly hire illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect. Some has green cards that’s been here for decades but the percentage is extremely very low. The % you are talking about doesn’t reflect the reality. Farmers don’t have much choices but use the available labor they have for several decades.
> H2A visa is more expensive than using the illegals because you have to corral them making sure they don’t escape, provide food and housing and some forms of clothing. Why bother when you can hire existing people?
> Some of these H2A people coming from Asia don’t even show up to their assigned sponsors. They just disappear from the airport.
> 
> A long time ago maybe 10 years or so kids in my neighborhood cuts grass, clean pools and wash cars etc. Today not a single one of these kids can be seen except Mexicans just like my gardener for 5 years. I pay him $145 a month to maintain my lawn 3 times a month no more than 45 minutes each time. Even if we as a whole want to hire Americans. Where are they?
> 
> I know several people that own home care where they converted their houses to take care old people here in Ca, Ar, and Hawaii. No a single white or black Americans but ONLY Mexicans or Asians are available making from $12 to $18/hour with overtime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect? Yet you post no link for your support as to percentages, just your opinion based non-sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most illegals do not work in agriculture — only about 4 percent of the illegal-immigrant population is employed in farming. In no state is farming the predominant occupation of illegal immigrants; even in places such as California, where labor-intensive fruit-and-vegetable farming attracts a relatively large illegal workforce, the main occupations of illegals are in hospitality (restaurants and hotels), services, and transportation. Likewise, most of the people working in agriculture are not illegals: *The great majority of the farming workforce is composed of legal workers,* with *illegals constituting about one-fourth of the total.* Illegals make up a larger share of the farm workforce than they do any other labor pool, but they remain a small though not inconsequential minority of workers.
> 
> Read more at: The Specter of the $20 Avocado
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legal workers includes, H2A workers, LPR's, and citizens. SMFH
> 
> How about this from PEW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although they were 5% of the overall workforce in 2012, unauthorized immigrants represent a notably higher share of workers in some industries where they are concentrated. *They were 16% of employees in the agriculture industry*, 12% of employees in the construction industry and 9% of employees in the leisure and hospitality industry.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrants are particularly concentrated in some subsets of each major industry. In 2012, they represented 24% of workers in the landscaping industry, 23% of those in private household employment, 20% of those in apparel manufacturing, 20% in crop production, 19% in the dry cleaning and laundry industry and 19% of those in building maintenance.
> 
> 
> Chapter 2: Industries of Unauthorized Immigrant Workers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, like I previously stated, they are not a majority workforce in any industry in the US.
> 
> Where I live the lawn care guys are all white with the exception of the commercial landscapers that do the city contracts. As for in home health care, I see Asians predominantly, whites and blacks. House cleaning services I see both Hispanic and White, in fact I have a white US Citizen that comes and cleans my house weekly. SHRUG
> 
> Just because you see something in specific areas doesn't mean it is that way everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very funny.
> Again I post based on experience and reality.
> I asked you to provide me the locations you are talking about. Where is that?
> 
> I do not need to show you a link to support what I’m saying. So if I know a large farmer owners In California and Arizona. what made you think the next door farmers are doing any different?
> I already prove to you that H2A is a joke and not cost effective.
> I also used Molly maids to clean both of my houses and they are illegals from Cuba and Mexico.
> 
> Where you live? That’s funny. You are giving me your very limited experience. How many health care owners that you know one? How about If i will tell you about 40 home care owners located here in California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada and Hawaii.
> 
> Funny. I never said illegals are the majority of workforce in America.
Click to expand...

Again, you posted mostly on hearsay from your little circle of people you know. SHRUG

I know farmers too in California and Texas, in fact I do work for some, their experiences are much different. And as I pointed out roughly 1/4 of farm workers are illegals. There is not a single industry in which illegals make up the majority of workers. You proved the H2A is a Joke? LMFAO Your opinion is not proof of anything. SMFH

You really need to brush up on your English Comprehension. 

I gave you my opinion and what I see along with numerous links that you don't seem to adept at understanding.  Either back up your inept opinion or come up with something new.


----------



## Humorme

JoeMoma said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was *illegally ratified*. It does not matter what the original intent was. It was illegally ratified and deliberately misinterpreted. *AND*, adding insult to injury, the United States Supreme Court claims t
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not the consensus of the United States Government.  Like it or not, that’s the government that is currently in charge here.  I personally believe that the federal government has expanded its laws beyond the powers enumerated by the constitution; however, I have to live in reality.
Click to expand...


I live in reality as well.  That is why the argument that the 14th Amendment is not being interpreted as the original intent holds no more weight than my argument does.

Reality is reality.

And, the reality is, if only a portion of America practices passive resistance and civil disobedience toward the 14th Amendment, it falls regardless of what the United States Supreme Court does.  It takes less effort to let the 14th fall via citizen attitudes versus trying to amend the Constitution.


----------



## Humorme

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, less than 50% of field workers are illegals, how do you then suppose over 85% of our crops will rot? SMFH
> Many crops can be harvested with machines, its the up front expense to the farmer as to why he doesn't purchase them and not hire manual labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure where got the 50% but I know farmers that owns very large farms in Delano, Bakersfield and Arizona area and most or all are Illegals. Some has green cards but they are all Hispanics.
> Machine operators are also illegals.
> 
> Wages rise on California farms. Americans still don't want the job
> 
> To keep crops from rotting in the field, farmers say they need Trump to let in more temporary workers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well which is it, most or all are illegals, yet some have green cards? I'll bet some are even US Citizens. SMFH So what if they are all Hispanic in Southern CA and AZ. PEW research gave the % number, its easy enough to look up.
> 
> As to your second link, the farmers need to use the tools they have allowed for them, namely the H2A visa, they choose not to use it. If they don't like it then they need to lobby to get it changed, but until it is they are stuck with using it, or take the chance at being caught if they knowingly hire illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect. Some has green cards that’s been here for decades but the percentage is extremely very low. The % you are talking about doesn’t reflect the reality. Farmers don’t have much choices but use the available labor they have for several decades.
> H2A visa is more expensive than using the illegals because you have to corral them making sure they don’t escape, provide food and housing and some forms of clothing. Why bother when you can hire existing people?
> Some of these H2A people coming from Asia don’t even show up to their assigned sponsors. They just disappear from the airport.
> 
> A long time ago maybe 10 years or so kids in my neighborhood cuts grass, clean pools and wash cars etc. Today not a single one of these kids can be seen except Mexicans just like my gardener for 5 years. I pay him $145 a month to maintain my lawn 3 times a month no more than 45 minutes each time. Even if we as a whole want to hire Americans. Where are they?
> 
> I know several people that own home care where they converted their houses to take care old people here in Ca, Ar, and Hawaii. No a single white or black Americans but ONLY Mexicans or Asians are available making from $12 to $18/hour with overtime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect? Yet you post no link for your support as to percentages, just your opinion based non-sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most illegals do not work in agriculture — only about 4 percent of the illegal-immigrant population is employed in farming. In no state is farming the predominant occupation of illegal immigrants; even in places such as California, where labor-intensive fruit-and-vegetable farming attracts a relatively large illegal workforce, the main occupations of illegals are in hospitality (restaurants and hotels), services, and transportation. Likewise, most of the people working in agriculture are not illegals: *The great majority of the farming workforce is composed of legal workers,* with *illegals constituting about one-fourth of the total.* Illegals make up a larger share of the farm workforce than they do any other labor pool, but they remain a small though not inconsequential minority of workers.
> 
> Read more at: The Specter of the $20 Avocado
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legal workers includes, H2A workers, LPR's, and citizens. SMFH
> 
> How about this from PEW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although they were 5% of the overall workforce in 2012, unauthorized immigrants represent a notably higher share of workers in some industries where they are concentrated. *They were 16% of employees in the agriculture industry*, 12% of employees in the construction industry and 9% of employees in the leisure and hospitality industry.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrants are particularly concentrated in some subsets of each major industry. In 2012, they represented 24% of workers in the landscaping industry, 23% of those in private household employment, 20% of those in apparel manufacturing, 20% in crop production, 19% in the dry cleaning and laundry industry and 19% of those in building maintenance.
> 
> 
> Chapter 2: Industries of Unauthorized Immigrant Workers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, like I previously stated, they are not a majority workforce in any industry in the US.
> 
> Where I live the lawn care guys are all white with the exception of the commercial landscapers that do the city contracts. As for in home health care, I see Asians predominantly, whites and blacks. House cleaning services I see both Hispanic and White, in fact I have a white US Citizen that comes and cleans my house weekly. SHRUG
> 
> Just because you see something in specific areas doesn't mean it is that way everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very funny.
> Again I post based on experience and reality.
> I asked you to provide me the locations you are talking about. Where is that?
> 
> I do not need to show you a link to support what I’m saying. So if I know a large farmer owners In California and Arizona. what made you think the next door farmers are doing any different?
> I already prove to you that H2A is a joke and not cost effective.
> I also used Molly maids to clean both of my houses and they are illegals from Cuba and Mexico.
> 
> Where you live? That’s funny. You are giving me your very limited experience. How many health care owners that you know one? How about If i will tell you about 40 home care owners located here in California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada and Hawaii.
> 
> Funny. I never said illegals are the majority of workforce in America.
Click to expand...




Circe said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you're talking about.  If you catch someone at the border, you ship them home.  If they are here, they are presumed to be innocent AND IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO *BE HERE*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly I know what I'm talking about. You are trying to snarl something obvious in a trap of words that favors the leftwing, open-borders side, but not doing very well at it since no one is likely to get confused about this issue. Of course it is illegal for an illegal to be here: THAT is exactly why we call them illegal!
> 
> If you were right, Immigration wouldn't be chasing illegals around 7-11 stores, you know. But they are chasing them there and elsewhere. This reminds me of people who want to make homosexuality "normal" by using words, words, words --- when if it were normal, after all, we wouldn't be talking about it! By constantly talking about it, the leftists disprove their own contention.
> 
> Same thing here. If they weren't illegal, we wouldn't call them illegals. You are trying to get us NOT to call them illegals anymore with the hope of that somehow fixing the problem that they come into the country illegally, like calling retarded people mentally handicapped or special needs will somehow fix the problem with their poor mental ability and make it go away.
> 
> Hope on, hope ever.
Click to expand...


Your words:

"_Of course it is illegal for an illegal to be here_"

*RESPONSE*:


"_Michele M. Taylor, the group’s associate director for communications, pointed to the 2012 Supreme Court case Arizona vs. United States. The majority opinion found that "as a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States."

Experts agreed. Unlawful presence is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor, said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. It is a civil infraction that results in removal and a bar on re-entry for a certain period of time.

"Not everything that’s illegal — meaning against the law or violating the law — is a crime," Shapiro said. "There are civil violations, like when you get a parking ticket. ‘Unlawful presence’ is one of these. You don't go to jail or receive any other criminal punishment for being in the country illegally — you get deported_."

Is being in the United States unlawfully a 'crime'?

Also see this:

Supreme Court Decision on Arizona Immigration Law

The *United States Supreme Court* has ruled.  Research Arizona v. U.S.

I'm giving you the facts, not stroking my ego about some idiotic false assumption as you are.  And NO, *acknowledging the facts does not* make me a liberal.  It gives me the advantage of understanding reality.  Earlier in this thread I told you how immigration laws are interpreted by those who make the decisions.

Since you disagree with me, I suppose you have actually been involved in an actual immigration case and have presented - and *prevailed* with your position???  Can you cite the case you have experience with?  Those were rhetorical questions.


----------



## Humorme

Coyote said:


> Poll: Most support path to legal status for illegal immigrants
> _Nearly two-thirds of Americans say there should be a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants, according to a new poll, and only 26 percent think stopping border crossings should be the top immigration priority.
> 
> Sixty percent say a pathway for legal residency should be the government’s immigration priority in the CNN/ORC survey released Friday.
> 
> *Thirteen percent said deporting illegal immigrants should instead be immigration priority No. 1.* One percent had no opinion.
> 
> Pollsters report *58 percent worry deportation efforts will go too far *by deporting people who have not committed serious crimes, compared to 40 percent who fear deportation efforts would be too lenient, letting dangerous criminals remain in the U.S. untouched. Two percent had no response.
> 
> *Twenty-seven percent said the government should deport all illegal immigrants, while by 71 percent disagree*._​
> Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants
> _The poll finds a record-high *83 percent of voters support setting up a system for all illegal immigrants who are currently working in the country to become legal residents*, up nine points since last year. Just 14 percent say “deport as many as possible,” down from a high of 30 percent in July 2015.
> 
> There is rare partisan agreement on all fronts.
> 
> Democrats (66 percent), Republicans (60 percent) and independents (59 percent) all agree it is important Congress work on Dreamer legislation. Partisans are also in sync on granting work permits and U.S. citizenship to these individuals, as majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents favor both actions.
> 
> Moreover, 63 percent of Trump voters favor granting Dreamers citizenship.
> 
> Setting up a system to legalize undocumented immigrants working in the U.S. also receives bipartisan support: most Democrats (95 percent legalize vs. 4 percent deport), Republicans (69-28 percent) and independents (82-13 percent) want legalization to happen.
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...y-statistic-do-80-percent-americans-oppose-s/
> 
> A survey from Harvard–Harris Poll provided exclusively to The Hill found that *80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents *the illegal immigrants they come into contact with.
> 
> The Harvard–Harris Poll survey found *strong support for an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, with 77 percent saying they support comprehensive immigration reform against only 23 percent who oppose*.
> 
> “While there is broad support for comprehensive immigration reform, there is overwhelming opposition to sanctuary cities,” said Harvard–Harris co-director Mark Penn. “The public wants honest immigrants treated fairly and those who commit crimes deported and that's very clear from the data.”_​
> And...an interesting analysis in reference to the above poll specifically but can be applied to all polls: Do 80 percent of Americans oppose sanctuary cities?
> _One of our readers asked us to investigate. We decided not to put the 80 percent finding to the Truth-O-Meter, because we don’t doubt the reliability of the poll itself. But questions phrased differently can show dramatically different results.
> 
> *All told, the finding is a case study in how poll results can be seized by advocates for one side of an issue -- and how some of the nuances in the questions and the answers can be lost in the hubbub*.
> 
> *A closer look at the questions*
> The question in the poll that attracted the most attention -- certainly from the political right -- was this one: "Should cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes be required to turn them over to immigration authorities?" On this question, 80 percent of respondents said yes.
> 
> But as we looked into the question, we noticed a couple things.
> 
> One was that, despite the blaring headlines about sanctuary cities, *the question being asked didn’t actually use the words "sanctuary cities." The other concerned words that the question did use -- "arrest" and "crimes."*
> 
> To understand why such wording choices matter -- and why they could potentially change the results of the poll -- we first need to review what the term "sanctuary city" actually means.
> 
> *The question wording*
> The specific wording used to ask any poll question is always important. It’s not even necessarily a comparison of "good wording" vs."bad wording" -- if a question is asked a certain way, it could nudge respondents to answer in one direction.
> 
> 
> *In this case, respondents were asked about "crimes." To many, that could bring to mind "violent crimes," especially when paired with the term "arrest."*
> 
> But the experts we spoke to said the jurisdictions described as sanctuary cities *don’t simply let murderers, rapists, armed robbers and other people they arrest for violent crimes go free.* Not only would federal immigration officials be notified, but the violent crimes they were charged with would be prosecuted.
> 
> Instead, where the rubber hits the road with sanctuary cities is with lesser, non-violent offenses, even down to a broken tail light -- or simply any interaction with police, such as an undocumented immigrant becoming a happenstance witness to a crime. These are the cases in which police in sanctuary cities would typically be trained to refrain from asking for immigration status or informing federal immigration officials.
> 
> *And this nuance is not captured by the question that garnered 80 percent support in the Harvard-Harris poll -- as well as the lion’s share of headlines.*
> 
> "Question wording always affects responses," said Steven S. Smith, a political scientist and pollster at Washington University in St. Louis. "‘Arrest … for crimes’ certainly primes the respondent to think that the person is dangerous and therefore should be a high priority in immigration law enforcement."
> 
> Karlyn Bowman, a polling analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, noted that there is little history of past polling on the issue of sanctuary cities. *But she did uncover one poll released a few days after the Harvard-Harris poll that seems to back up the idea that different wording can substantially change the result.*
> 
> The poll, conducted by Quinnipiac University and released on Feb. 23, asked, "Thinking about people who have immigrated to the U.S. illegally, who do you think should be deported: Should no illegal immigrants be deported, only illegal immigrants that have committed serious crimes, only illegal immigrants that have committed any crime, or should all illegal immigrants be deported?"
> 
> The results: Only 3 percent said no illegal immigrants should be deported, and 19 percent said all illegal immigrants should be deported. But 53 percent of respondents said deportations should only be done for "serious crimes," compared to 22 percent for "any crime."
> 
> *That’s not just a plurality -- it’s a majority. And that tells a different story than the Internet headlines.*_​



I do not agree with some of the things that the majority of the American people have stated relative to this (especially the pathway to citizenship.)  But, what you posted is an accurate reflection of the facts.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Since you disagree with me, I suppose you have actually been involved in an actual immigration case and have presented - and *prevailed* with your position???  Can you cite the case you have experience with?  Those were rhetorical questions.


You being called as a witness in a court case doesn't constitute you prevailing in your position. SMFH


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i posted several times here. I know tons of businesses and business owners and farmers. These where I based my facts and opinions when it come to this topic.
> 
> The economy is booming. Without these illegals the economy will not be this good especially here in California the 6th largest economy of the world. That’s a fact.
> 
> California Crops Rot as Immigration Crackdown Creates Farmworker Shortage
> 
> 
> 
> The farmers have brought it on themselves if they are not using the H2A visa as there is no limit on the amount of workers they can bring in.
> 
> Your opinion is not factual and basing what you claim as facts on the few people you know isn't a large enough pool to make a claim on.
> 
> So lets look at your link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unclear exactly how widespread the labor shortage is for farmers throughout the country, which would have a bigger impact on prices consumers pay. Ultimately, drought and flooding have a more significant impact on farms. Low oil prices could also offset any impact of the worker shortage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Its unclear how widespread the labor shortage is? Drought and flooding have a bigger impact? Oil prices can offset worker shortages?
> 
> Looks like opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I suggest you don't claim opinion as fact as it always comes back to bite you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion is based from what you read. My opinion is based from reality and experience with real farmers and business owners. I already explained myself how dumb is H2A program is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMFAO What you think and what you see is based on you perceived notions in specific areas. Your opinion is based on your very limited circle of friends.
> 
> Whether you think the H2A is stupid or not has no bearing, it is there for the specific purpose of farmers to use, and if they fail to use it then it is there failure and nobody else's. I am a business owner in the Landscape industry and I have no problem getting white/black guys who all have legal documents (as I use E-verify) to work for me. SHRUG
Click to expand...


Limited circle of friends?  Really? 

Are you telling just because you a landscaper you know more about labor force than me? You are funnier than I thought. Talking about limited.

I never said H2A was stupid. It’s just not cost effective. If you think you are accurate then we should not have a shortage of illegals here in California and Arizona. You probably don’t even know a single farmer. 

Let me repeat it again. Hiring a people via H2A will require for the farmer to provide.
1. Board and lodging.
2. Corral them making sure they don’t escape. 
3. Responsible for sending them back. 
4. Some form of health care assistance.
5. Some form of clothing. 
6. Do you honestly believe an H2A individual that came all the way from India or Philippines etc etc will fly here just to pick strawberries? These farmers will send their best educated kids here to seek better living aside from farming. That’s a fact. 

So what the point when there are illegals everywhere? 

I have not met a single farmers in Asia or India that are rich. 

You can shrug however you want but it is what it is. 

I have not seen black and white landscapers for a very long time. Few blacks probably in Los Angeles ghetto. 
I’m talking about Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside County. 

I’m pretty sure you probably don’t even know the labor shortages of rebuilding Houston after Harvey and Irma in Florida.


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antifa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to include packing houses, slaughter houses (feed market), and restaurants. Without all these illegal workers, our economy will take a nose dive. The farmers will only be able to salvage about 15% of their crop.
> 
> Look what happened in Alabama.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, the slaughter houses had people lined up to work there when Bush raided them and got rid of all the illegal workers. Restaurants would lose buss boys, but guess what, young 16 - 20 year old's would take those jobs.
> 
> Those days without an illegal 10 or so years ago blew up in their faces. Our economy wouldn't notice them being gone.  Farmers would lose some, it wouldn't be an 85% loss, at best a 20% loss.
> 
> Alabama? some farmers claiming losses, yet produce costs did not change nor were there produce shortages in the markets. gofigure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That’s funny. There are slaughterhouse here and I don’t see anyone but Hispanics.
> Oh yes guarantee you 100% they will be missed if those illegals are gone.
> I don’t see 16 or even 25 yo white boys or girls working in restaurants as buss boys here. They don’t even work at McDonald’s. Kids are not the same like it used to be. Get that straight.
> 
> Did you research what happened in Alabama?
> 
> Where are you getting your opinions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are you assuming because they are Hispanics then they are also illegals? Sure seems you are associating there heritage to them being illegally here. SMFH
> 
> Up here in Northern California white boys and girls are working as bus boys and dishwashers in local restaurants. I have 2 McDonalds within 2 miles of where I live, the people working in them have every color of skin tone one could imagine, and they all speak English without accents. :SHRUG:
> 
> Maybe you should actually research the subject verse reading headlines and basing your opinion off things you don't seem to adept at truly knowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. I’m not assuming anything because of their looks. I talked to my friends that are business owners from different categories just about everything. From how much they get paid, who work harder Mexicans or Salvadorians or Guatemalans or where they live etc etc.
> 
> I know several McDonald’s owners and restaurants. Do you mind telling me where that McDonald’s in northern Ca you are telling me? I know some of them in that locations.
> Kids now are so different now compared from a long time ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you are, your claims are based on your limited sample, the few people you know. Hell I have kids in high school and out of high school that send me resumes for jobs they want, at least 3 a week. With the equipment I use and my insurance requirements I am limited who I can hire. There are 2 McDonalds along Highway 65 between Rocklin/Roseville and Sheridan, both have high school kids of all colors working in them, so does the Taco Bell, Jack in the Box, Burger King, Subway, Togos, Red Robin, Panda Express, Carls Jr, etc.
Click to expand...


Nah! You are saying kids applying jobs to your landscape. So what happened to the your older employees with experience? I have not seen a black and white landscapers for a very long time let alone kids. 

Sure there are places in America that employ kids. I never said ALL.


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i posted several times here. I know tons of businesses and business owners and farmers. These where I based my facts and opinions when it come to this topic.
> 
> The economy is booming. Without these illegals the economy will not be this good especially here in California the 6th largest economy of the world. That’s a fact.
> 
> California Crops Rot as Immigration Crackdown Creates Farmworker Shortage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Georgia has had the same problem for years:
> 
> Georgia's Harsh Immigration Law Costs Millions in Unharvested Crops
> 
> Migrant workers still in need
> 
> "_Crops went untended as the season's harvest began, and more than $1 million a day vanished as the human-fueled agricultural harvest machine of migrant labor in the United States stalled_."
> 
> Ben Carson's Immigrant Visa Idea Favored By Farmers As Nation's Crops Rot
> 
> It's been an issue in Alabama for years as well and some say this is a problem nationwide (and has been for as long as the crackdowns have been going on):
> 
> Alabama Illegal Immigrant Crackdown Destroys Farm Business
> 
> Crops rot while Trump-led immigration backlash idles farm work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they used the H2A visa, then there would be no problems for them, they would have all the labor they need since there are no annual caps for the H2A nor is there a limit to how many a single farmer can bring in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Illegals are here and they need to work instead of relying from welfare. Why is that so bad?
> 2. If it’s easier and cost effective to hire H2A don’t you think all of them could have done that?
> 
> Your opinion does not reflect the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) Illegals are here, and they need to be removed. Then we don't have to worry about if they are or not receiving welfare or tax refunds they aren't entitled to via the ITIN they file with.
> 
> 2)Doesn't matter if its easier or cost effective, it is what is at their disposal they refuse to use. Maybe they should mechanize and they won't have to deal with field labor ever again. SHRUG
> 
> My opinion does reflect reality, as I showed, your limited samples don't represent anything outside of your limited samples. Do you really think there are illegals working in naked/titi bars and hospitals? SMFH
Click to expand...


1. Based from your very limited experience. You have no clue the importance of illegals contribution to California’s economy. You have no clue. Get real. 

2. You own a business? Really? 
Running a business cost effective is VERY important just incase you don’t know what you are talking about. 

Based from I heard from you have very limited knowledge of labor force. Your opinion does not reflect reality. 
I never said illegals work at titi bars and hospitals. I just gave you the examples the scopes of my experience in the labor force. Not from a landscapers.


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure where got the 50% but I know farmers that owns very large farms in Delano, Bakersfield and Arizona area and most or all are Illegals. Some has green cards but they are all Hispanics.
> Machine operators are also illegals.
> 
> Wages rise on California farms. Americans still don't want the job
> 
> To keep crops from rotting in the field, farmers say they need Trump to let in more temporary workers
> 
> 
> 
> Well which is it, most or all are illegals, yet some have green cards? I'll bet some are even US Citizens. SMFH So what if they are all Hispanic in Southern CA and AZ. PEW research gave the % number, its easy enough to look up.
> 
> As to your second link, the farmers need to use the tools they have allowed for them, namely the H2A visa, they choose not to use it. If they don't like it then they need to lobby to get it changed, but until it is they are stuck with using it, or take the chance at being caught if they knowingly hire illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect. Some has green cards that’s been here for decades but the percentage is extremely very low. The % you are talking about doesn’t reflect the reality. Farmers don’t have much choices but use the available labor they have for several decades.
> H2A visa is more expensive than using the illegals because you have to corral them making sure they don’t escape, provide food and housing and some forms of clothing. Why bother when you can hire existing people?
> Some of these H2A people coming from Asia don’t even show up to their assigned sponsors. They just disappear from the airport.
> 
> A long time ago maybe 10 years or so kids in my neighborhood cuts grass, clean pools and wash cars etc. Today not a single one of these kids can be seen except Mexicans just like my gardener for 5 years. I pay him $145 a month to maintain my lawn 3 times a month no more than 45 minutes each time. Even if we as a whole want to hire Americans. Where are they?
> 
> I know several people that own home care where they converted their houses to take care old people here in Ca, Ar, and Hawaii. No a single white or black Americans but ONLY Mexicans or Asians are available making from $12 to $18/hour with overtime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect? Yet you post no link for your support as to percentages, just your opinion based non-sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most illegals do not work in agriculture — only about 4 percent of the illegal-immigrant population is employed in farming. In no state is farming the predominant occupation of illegal immigrants; even in places such as California, where labor-intensive fruit-and-vegetable farming attracts a relatively large illegal workforce, the main occupations of illegals are in hospitality (restaurants and hotels), services, and transportation. Likewise, most of the people working in agriculture are not illegals: *The great majority of the farming workforce is composed of legal workers,* with *illegals constituting about one-fourth of the total.* Illegals make up a larger share of the farm workforce than they do any other labor pool, but they remain a small though not inconsequential minority of workers.
> 
> Read more at: The Specter of the $20 Avocado
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legal workers includes, H2A workers, LPR's, and citizens. SMFH
> 
> How about this from PEW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although they were 5% of the overall workforce in 2012, unauthorized immigrants represent a notably higher share of workers in some industries where they are concentrated. *They were 16% of employees in the agriculture industry*, 12% of employees in the construction industry and 9% of employees in the leisure and hospitality industry.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrants are particularly concentrated in some subsets of each major industry. In 2012, they represented 24% of workers in the landscaping industry, 23% of those in private household employment, 20% of those in apparel manufacturing, 20% in crop production, 19% in the dry cleaning and laundry industry and 19% of those in building maintenance.
> 
> 
> Chapter 2: Industries of Unauthorized Immigrant Workers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, like I previously stated, they are not a majority workforce in any industry in the US.
> 
> Where I live the lawn care guys are all white with the exception of the commercial landscapers that do the city contracts. As for in home health care, I see Asians predominantly, whites and blacks. House cleaning services I see both Hispanic and White, in fact I have a white US Citizen that comes and cleans my house weekly. SHRUG
> 
> Just because you see something in specific areas doesn't mean it is that way everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very funny.
> Again I post based on experience and reality.
> I asked you to provide me the locations you are talking about. Where is that?
> 
> I do not need to show you a link to support what I’m saying. So if I know a large farmer owners In California and Arizona. what made you think the next door farmers are doing any different?
> I already prove to you that H2A is a joke and not cost effective.
> I also used Molly maids to clean both of my houses and they are illegals from Cuba and Mexico.
> 
> Where you live? That’s funny. You are giving me your very limited experience. How many health care owners that you know one? How about If i will tell you about 40 home care owners located here in California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada and Hawaii.
> 
> Funny. I never said illegals are the majority of workforce in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you posted mostly on hearsay from your little circle of people you know. SHRUG
> 
> I know farmers too in California and Texas, in fact I do work for some, their experiences are much different. And as I pointed out roughly 1/4 of farm workers are illegals. There is not a single industry in which illegals make up the majority of workers. You proved the H2A is a Joke? LMFAO Your opinion is not proof of anything. SMFH
> 
> You really need to brush up on your English Comprehension.
> 
> I gave you my opinion and what I see along with numerous links that you don't seem to adept at understanding.  Either back up your inept opinion or come up with something new.
Click to expand...


Suddenly you know a farmer. Very funny. I posted over and over on separate and different threads about farmers I know for almost 3 years. If you think I have a limited knowledge of workforce. But for sure I know far more than a landscaper. 

Again I never said illegals are the majority of American workers.


----------



## Humorme

Slyhunter said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my personal opinion...it's complicated.
> 
> No, I don't believe in "open boarders" - we need a good immigration and border policy to protect our country.
> 
> I think it's important to have a good border security policy.  I don't support a physical wall because of it's effect on the natural migrations of wildlife and on border communities.  But there are many other good ways of improving security that don't involve a wall.
> 
> When it comes to those already here - I am not that concerned unless they commit a violent crime.  Then, upon conviction (and jail time) - boot them out.  Otherwise I see it as a lesser category of crime...like trespassing.  I would rather spend law enforcement dollars on violent crimes - murder, rape, gang violence, drug violence.
> 
> I guess I don't understand why an illegal immigrant should be in the same category as a violent rapist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if Joe Illegal can sneak across the border tomorrow,then he becomes part of the already here category and gets de facto legal status?  I think it sends a mixed message to to have “border security” at the border but no means of enforcement within the borders once someone manages to breach that security.
> 
> I agree that it is a lessor category of crime than rape and murder and such.   Usually Trespassers are at minimum made to leave when they are caught trespassing.
> 
> That being said, if we stop giving those here illegally de facto legal status by allowing them access to things like public schools, driver’s licenses, jobs (not using e-verify), etc then there will be much less incentive for new illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you deny things like access to public schools, welfare, and other government benefits, what is your problem with undocumented foreigners?
> 
> At the end of the day, you are still insinuating that someone must be a citizen or on the path to citizenship in order to be able to participate in the free market.  Here's the real bottom line problem:
> 
> Those who are on this border security kick cannot differentiate between citizenship and the Rights of every human.  When I hire people around my place, if they've done work for a neighbor; if I like their prices / terms; if I get the warm and fuzzy feeling, then they get the job.  No matter what laws they pass, that is never going to change.
> 
> If you want people to come here _"legally_,"  let them come in at a border checkpoint.  Issue Worker IDs if necessary.  But, this dishonest and totalitarian B.S. of visas that are capped and endless delays just to enter the United States is idiotic, pointless, and tyrannical.  It makes a mockery of the view that our country is open to anyone.  You can't have the Statue of Liberty welcoming people into the country on one hand and then making it impossible for people to come here.
> 
> The bottom line is that* YOU* would not allow a worthless piece of paper, issued by a tyrannical government deter *YOU* from taking a job to feed your family.  *YOU* would not allow Donald Trump to tell you that you couldn't go to Mexico and take a job there in order to feed your family - AND have to forfeit your citizenship here just to keep a roof over your family's head.
> 
> You can sugar-coat it any way you want, but the nutty wall idea came from people who want the United States to be an all white country.  I'd have more respect for them and their supporters if they would simply quit trying to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining.  A lot of undocumented workers are being discovered today that have been here for twenty years or more.  They have gotten an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, paid the taxes, and obeyed all the other laws.  *They did not become citizens.  They may have had opportunities to become citizens and they passed on it*. What's the real problem?  Where is the security issue?  Why should anyone stand in any line in order to exercise the Rights of Liberty?  Guest Workers don't need to be standing in a line with people wanting to become citizens.  Guest Workers shouldn't even be on a list to become a citizen.
> 
> Look, if you have a problem with those people working the jobs, then *boycott* businesses that employ an inordinate amount of foreigners. I see people offering jobs to Muslims, Jews, etc. and if I don't see some American faces, I *boycott *the business.  I don't try to tell that business who to hire nor what to pay.  If foreigners come here *properly* and they don't assimilate, I don't give two hoots in Hell what their story is.  They are no better than the paper-less foreigner that comes here and blends in.  Denying one employer the opportunity to hire a foreigner by making them stand in a line that ought to be for people seeking citizenship (and even those ought to be able to come and wait if they have the financial ability to be here) is discriminatory - and unconstitutional - as it denies the employer the equal protection of the laws.  If you don't like foreigners, then let the market decide.  If Americans don't want them here, don't hire them, don't sell to them, and quit shopping at businesses that employ them.  But, don't assume you have the Right to stand in the way of the Liberties of your fellow American NOR the foreigner who takes advantage of an opportunity *willingly* offered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with Race.
> You just proved you've never watched this.
Click to expand...



Seen it before, but it proves nothing.  It does not discount the last 225 years plus of American history.


----------



## Humorme

JoeMoma said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know!   Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it.   Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards.   Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge!   The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!
> 
> 
> 
> Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s why I didn’t say in the short term.  If the millions currently here are given a path to citizenship then they will be able to vote.  Isn’t that what is currently being hashed out with DACA?  I am not necessarily against giving the dreamers legal status.  I am against giving millions a path to citizenship ahead of those that follow the rules and immigrant legally.  And if the millions that are currently here are granted a path to citizenship, we are going to simply repeat the cycle started by Reagan when amnesty was granted in the 80s if we don’t take measures to secure the border.
Click to expand...


Why do you limit yourself to this nonsensical idea of allowing the Dreamers to become citizens at all?

Reality check:  Citizenship is *NOT *doled out on a first come first served basis.  That's just the way it is.

What do you not understand about the concept that legal status need *NOT* end in citizenship?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i posted several times here. I know tons of businesses and business owners and farmers. These where I based my facts and opinions when it come to this topic.
> 
> The economy is booming. Without these illegals the economy will not be this good especially here in California the 6th largest economy of the world. That’s a fact.
> 
> California Crops Rot as Immigration Crackdown Creates Farmworker Shortage
> 
> 
> 
> The farmers have brought it on themselves if they are not using the H2A visa as there is no limit on the amount of workers they can bring in.
> 
> Your opinion is not factual and basing what you claim as facts on the few people you know isn't a large enough pool to make a claim on.
> 
> So lets look at your link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unclear exactly how widespread the labor shortage is for farmers throughout the country, which would have a bigger impact on prices consumers pay. Ultimately, drought and flooding have a more significant impact on farms. Low oil prices could also offset any impact of the worker shortage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Its unclear how widespread the labor shortage is? Drought and flooding have a bigger impact? Oil prices can offset worker shortages?
> 
> Looks like opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I suggest you don't claim opinion as fact as it always comes back to bite you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion is based from what you read. My opinion is based from reality and experience with real farmers and business owners. I already explained myself how dumb is H2A program is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMFAO What you think and what you see is based on you perceived notions in specific areas. Your opinion is based on your very limited circle of friends.
> 
> Whether you think the H2A is stupid or not has no bearing, it is there for the specific purpose of farmers to use, and if they fail to use it then it is there failure and nobody else's. I am a business owner in the Landscape industry and I have no problem getting white/black guys who all have legal documents (as I use E-verify) to work for me. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Limited circle of friends?  Really?
> 
> Are you telling just because you a landscaper you know more about labor force than me? You are funnier than I thought. Talking about limited.
> 
> I never said H2A was stupid. It’s just not cost effective. If you think you are accurate then we should not have a shortage of illegals here in California and Arizona. You probably don’t even know a single farmer.
> 
> Let me repeat it again. Hiring a people via H2A will require for the farmer to provide.
> 1. Board and lodging.
> 2. Corral them making sure they don’t escape.
> 3. Responsible for sending them back.
> 4. Some form of health care assistance.
> 5. Some form of clothing.
> 6. Do you honestly believe an H2A individual that came all the way from India or Philippines etc etc will fly here just to pick strawberries? These farmers will send their best educated kids here to seek better living aside from farming. That’s a fact.
> 
> So what the point when there are illegals everywhere?
> 
> I have not met a single farmers in Asia or India that are rich.
> 
> You can shrug however you want but it is what it is.
> 
> I have not seen black and white landscapers for a very long time. Few blacks probably in Los Angeles ghetto.
> I’m talking about Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside County.
> 
> I’m pretty sure you probably don’t even know the labor shortages of rebuilding Houston after Harvey and Irma in Florida.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you grasp what I stated and the links I showed. You on the other hand have shown nothing in regards to the "labor force". You have espoused what you claim is from your friends and their business practices, hardly indicative of the actual labor force. SHRUG

Actually farmers are hiring H2A visa holders via employment agencies.
Home
and
https://www.manta.com/c/mb4dd4m/h2a-placement-services-inc

So while you show what the farmer would have to do directly related to himself hiring the H2A, you, as usual, fail in knowing anything about the issue. LMFAO

Again, you demonstrate a small section of the US: _I’m talking about Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside County. _and try to exclaim it is indicative of the entire labor force. You really need to get out more. 

Do you understand or even know why there were labor shortages in Florida and Houston?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, the slaughter houses had people lined up to work there when Bush raided them and got rid of all the illegal workers. Restaurants would lose buss boys, but guess what, young 16 - 20 year old's would take those jobs.
> 
> Those days without an illegal 10 or so years ago blew up in their faces. Our economy wouldn't notice them being gone.  Farmers would lose some, it wouldn't be an 85% loss, at best a 20% loss.
> 
> Alabama? some farmers claiming losses, yet produce costs did not change nor were there produce shortages in the markets. gofigure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That’s funny. There are slaughterhouse here and I don’t see anyone but Hispanics.
> Oh yes guarantee you 100% they will be missed if those illegals are gone.
> I don’t see 16 or even 25 yo white boys or girls working in restaurants as buss boys here. They don’t even work at McDonald’s. Kids are not the same like it used to be. Get that straight.
> 
> Did you research what happened in Alabama?
> 
> Where are you getting your opinions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are you assuming because they are Hispanics then they are also illegals? Sure seems you are associating there heritage to them being illegally here. SMFH
> 
> Up here in Northern California white boys and girls are working as bus boys and dishwashers in local restaurants. I have 2 McDonalds within 2 miles of where I live, the people working in them have every color of skin tone one could imagine, and they all speak English without accents. :SHRUG:
> 
> Maybe you should actually research the subject verse reading headlines and basing your opinion off things you don't seem to adept at truly knowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. I’m not assuming anything because of their looks. I talked to my friends that are business owners from different categories just about everything. From how much they get paid, who work harder Mexicans or Salvadorians or Guatemalans or where they live etc etc.
> 
> I know several McDonald’s owners and restaurants. Do you mind telling me where that McDonald’s in northern Ca you are telling me? I know some of them in that locations.
> Kids now are so different now compared from a long time ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you are, your claims are based on your limited sample, the few people you know. Hell I have kids in high school and out of high school that send me resumes for jobs they want, at least 3 a week. With the equipment I use and my insurance requirements I am limited who I can hire. There are 2 McDonalds along Highway 65 between Rocklin/Roseville and Sheridan, both have high school kids of all colors working in them, so does the Taco Bell, Jack in the Box, Burger King, Subway, Togos, Red Robin, Panda Express, Carls Jr, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah! You are saying kids applying jobs to your landscape. So what happened to the your older employees with experience? I have not seen a black and white landscapers for a very long time let alone kids.
> 
> Sure there are places in America that employ kids. I never said ALL.
Click to expand...

Nothing happened to my older employees, they still work for me. My climber is Black and from Barbados, my groundsman are white. My youngest worker is 23, my oldest is 53. You inferred kids weren't working in these places, at least now you are admitting they do work in fast food and various other industries.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i posted several times here. I know tons of businesses and business owners and farmers. These where I based my facts and opinions when it come to this topic.
> 
> The economy is booming. Without these illegals the economy will not be this good especially here in California the 6th largest economy of the world. That’s a fact.
> 
> California Crops Rot as Immigration Crackdown Creates Farmworker Shortage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Georgia has had the same problem for years:
> 
> Georgia's Harsh Immigration Law Costs Millions in Unharvested Crops
> 
> Migrant workers still in need
> 
> "_Crops went untended as the season's harvest began, and more than $1 million a day vanished as the human-fueled agricultural harvest machine of migrant labor in the United States stalled_."
> 
> Ben Carson's Immigrant Visa Idea Favored By Farmers As Nation's Crops Rot
> 
> It's been an issue in Alabama for years as well and some say this is a problem nationwide (and has been for as long as the crackdowns have been going on):
> 
> Alabama Illegal Immigrant Crackdown Destroys Farm Business
> 
> Crops rot while Trump-led immigration backlash idles farm work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they used the H2A visa, then there would be no problems for them, they would have all the labor they need since there are no annual caps for the H2A nor is there a limit to how many a single farmer can bring in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Illegals are here and they need to work instead of relying from welfare. Why is that so bad?
> 2. If it’s easier and cost effective to hire H2A don’t you think all of them could have done that?
> 
> Your opinion does not reflect the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) Illegals are here, and they need to be removed. Then we don't have to worry about if they are or not receiving welfare or tax refunds they aren't entitled to via the ITIN they file with.
> 
> 2)Doesn't matter if its easier or cost effective, it is what is at their disposal they refuse to use. Maybe they should mechanize and they won't have to deal with field labor ever again. SHRUG
> 
> My opinion does reflect reality, as I showed, your limited samples don't represent anything outside of your limited samples. Do you really think there are illegals working in naked/titi bars and hospitals? SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Based from your very limited experience. You have no clue the importance of illegals contribution to California’s economy. You have no clue. Get real.
> 
> 2. You own a business? Really?
> Running a business cost effective is VERY important just incase you don’t know what you are talking about.
> 
> Based from I heard from you have very limited knowledge of labor force. Your opinion does not reflect reality.
> I never said illegals work at titi bars and hospitals. I just gave you the examples the scopes of my experience in the labor force. Not from a landscapers.
Click to expand...

Illegals aren't contributing to Californians economy, they use more in services then they contribute.  SHRUG

Yes, my own business. That's right you need to be cost effective when running a business. SMFH 

Your labor force experiences seem to frequent industries that don't have illegals working in them. SHRUG


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well which is it, most or all are illegals, yet some have green cards? I'll bet some are even US Citizens. SMFH So what if they are all Hispanic in Southern CA and AZ. PEW research gave the % number, its easy enough to look up.
> 
> As to your second link, the farmers need to use the tools they have allowed for them, namely the H2A visa, they choose not to use it. If they don't like it then they need to lobby to get it changed, but until it is they are stuck with using it, or take the chance at being caught if they knowingly hire illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. Some has green cards that’s been here for decades but the percentage is extremely very low. The % you are talking about doesn’t reflect the reality. Farmers don’t have much choices but use the available labor they have for several decades.
> H2A visa is more expensive than using the illegals because you have to corral them making sure they don’t escape, provide food and housing and some forms of clothing. Why bother when you can hire existing people?
> Some of these H2A people coming from Asia don’t even show up to their assigned sponsors. They just disappear from the airport.
> 
> A long time ago maybe 10 years or so kids in my neighborhood cuts grass, clean pools and wash cars etc. Today not a single one of these kids can be seen except Mexicans just like my gardener for 5 years. I pay him $145 a month to maintain my lawn 3 times a month no more than 45 minutes each time. Even if we as a whole want to hire Americans. Where are they?
> 
> I know several people that own home care where they converted their houses to take care old people here in Ca, Ar, and Hawaii. No a single white or black Americans but ONLY Mexicans or Asians are available making from $12 to $18/hour with overtime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect? Yet you post no link for your support as to percentages, just your opinion based non-sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most illegals do not work in agriculture — only about 4 percent of the illegal-immigrant population is employed in farming. In no state is farming the predominant occupation of illegal immigrants; even in places such as California, where labor-intensive fruit-and-vegetable farming attracts a relatively large illegal workforce, the main occupations of illegals are in hospitality (restaurants and hotels), services, and transportation. Likewise, most of the people working in agriculture are not illegals: *The great majority of the farming workforce is composed of legal workers,* with *illegals constituting about one-fourth of the total.* Illegals make up a larger share of the farm workforce than they do any other labor pool, but they remain a small though not inconsequential minority of workers.
> 
> Read more at: The Specter of the $20 Avocado
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legal workers includes, H2A workers, LPR's, and citizens. SMFH
> 
> How about this from PEW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although they were 5% of the overall workforce in 2012, unauthorized immigrants represent a notably higher share of workers in some industries where they are concentrated. *They were 16% of employees in the agriculture industry*, 12% of employees in the construction industry and 9% of employees in the leisure and hospitality industry.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrants are particularly concentrated in some subsets of each major industry. In 2012, they represented 24% of workers in the landscaping industry, 23% of those in private household employment, 20% of those in apparel manufacturing, 20% in crop production, 19% in the dry cleaning and laundry industry and 19% of those in building maintenance.
> 
> 
> Chapter 2: Industries of Unauthorized Immigrant Workers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, like I previously stated, they are not a majority workforce in any industry in the US.
> 
> Where I live the lawn care guys are all white with the exception of the commercial landscapers that do the city contracts. As for in home health care, I see Asians predominantly, whites and blacks. House cleaning services I see both Hispanic and White, in fact I have a white US Citizen that comes and cleans my house weekly. SHRUG
> 
> Just because you see something in specific areas doesn't mean it is that way everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very funny.
> Again I post based on experience and reality.
> I asked you to provide me the locations you are talking about. Where is that?
> 
> I do not need to show you a link to support what I’m saying. So if I know a large farmer owners In California and Arizona. what made you think the next door farmers are doing any different?
> I already prove to you that H2A is a joke and not cost effective.
> I also used Molly maids to clean both of my houses and they are illegals from Cuba and Mexico.
> 
> Where you live? That’s funny. You are giving me your very limited experience. How many health care owners that you know one? How about If i will tell you about 40 home care owners located here in California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada and Hawaii.
> 
> Funny. I never said illegals are the majority of workforce in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you posted mostly on hearsay from your little circle of people you know. SHRUG
> 
> I know farmers too in California and Texas, in fact I do work for some, their experiences are much different. And as I pointed out roughly 1/4 of farm workers are illegals. There is not a single industry in which illegals make up the majority of workers. You proved the H2A is a Joke? LMFAO Your opinion is not proof of anything. SMFH
> 
> You really need to brush up on your English Comprehension.
> 
> I gave you my opinion and what I see along with numerous links that you don't seem to adept at understanding.  Either back up your inept opinion or come up with something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suddenly you know a farmer. Very funny. I posted over and over on separate and different threads about farmers I know for almost 3 years. If you think I have a limited knowledge of workforce. But for sure I know far more than a landscaper.
> 
> Again I never said illegals are the majority of American workers.
Click to expand...

Suddenly I know a farmer? I deal with many orchards in my business. SHRUG
Wow you know a farmer or two for 3 years, I'm impressed. SMFH 

You know more than a landscaper? LMFAO Were you born stupid or dropped on your head somewhere along the line?


----------



## JoeMoma

Humorme said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know!   Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it.   Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards.   Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge!   The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!
> 
> 
> 
> Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s why I didn’t say in the short term.  If the millions currently here are given a path to citizenship then they will be able to vote.  Isn’t that what is currently being hashed out with DACA?  I am not necessarily against giving the dreamers legal status.  I am against giving millions a path to citizenship ahead of those that follow the rules and immigrant legally.  And if the millions that are currently here are granted a path to citizenship, we are going to simply repeat the cycle started by Reagan when amnesty was granted in the 80s if we don’t take measures to secure the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you limit yourself to this nonsensical idea of allowing the Dreamers to become citizens at all?
> 
> Reality check:  Citizenship is *NOT *doled out on a first come first served basis.  That's just the way it is.
> 
> What do you not understand about the concept that legal status need *NOT* end in citizenship?
Click to expand...

Democrats and RINO Lindsey Graham are for a path to citizenship for the Dreamers, etc.


----------



## Humorme

JoeMoma said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know!   Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it.   Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards.   Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge!   The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!
> 
> 
> 
> Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s why I didn’t say in the short term.  If the millions currently here are given a path to citizenship then they will be able to vote.  Isn’t that what is currently being hashed out with DACA?  I am not necessarily against giving the dreamers legal status.  I am against giving millions a path to citizenship ahead of those that follow the rules and immigrant legally.  And if the millions that are currently here are granted a path to citizenship, we are going to simply repeat the cycle started by Reagan when amnesty was granted in the 80s if we don’t take measures to secure the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you limit yourself to this nonsensical idea of allowing the Dreamers to become citizens at all?
> 
> Reality check:  Citizenship is *NOT *doled out on a first come first served basis.  That's just the way it is.
> 
> What do you not understand about the concept that legal status need *NOT* end in citizenship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats and RINO Lindsey Graham are for a path to citizenship for the Dreamers, etc.
Click to expand...


Lindsey Graham will probably become a D after the next election cycle.  

I'd let the Dreamers stay, but the only "_paths to citizenship_" ought to be connected to things like maybe a stint in the military, and if that is not doable for them, maybe  using a college degree in a field the government could utilize - say two years service working for the government (i.e. a doctor at the VA or maybe utilizing an engineering degree in a needed field.)


----------



## JoeMoma

Humorme said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.
> 
> 
> 
> There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s why I didn’t say in the short term.  If the millions currently here are given a path to citizenship then they will be able to vote.  Isn’t that what is currently being hashed out with DACA?  I am not necessarily against giving the dreamers legal status.  I am against giving millions a path to citizenship ahead of those that follow the rules and immigrant legally.  And if the millions that are currently here are granted a path to citizenship, we are going to simply repeat the cycle started by Reagan when amnesty was granted in the 80s if we don’t take measures to secure the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you limit yourself to this nonsensical idea of allowing the Dreamers to become citizens at all?
> 
> Reality check:  Citizenship is *NOT *doled out on a first come first served basis.  That's just the way it is.
> 
> What do you not understand about the concept that legal status need *NOT* end in citizenship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats and RINO Lindsey Graham are for a path to citizenship for the Dreamers, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lindsey Graham will probably become a D after the next election cycle.
> 
> I'd let the Dreamers stay, but the only "_paths to citizenship_" ought to be connected to things like maybe a stint in the military, and if that is not doable for them, maybe  using a college degree in a field the government could utilize - say two years service working for the government (i.e. a doctor at the VA or maybe utilizing an engineering degree in a needed field.)
Click to expand...

I agree.  There is another post somewhere in this thread that  I state that I would not mind if the dreamers are granted legal status but not citizenship with the condition that immigration law is enforced so that we are not repeating the cycle.


----------



## Humorme

JoeMoma said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why I didn’t say in the short term.  If the millions currently here are given a path to citizenship then they will be able to vote.  Isn’t that what is currently being hashed out with DACA?  I am not necessarily against giving the dreamers legal status.  I am against giving millions a path to citizenship ahead of those that follow the rules and immigrant legally.  And if the millions that are currently here are granted a path to citizenship, we are going to simply repeat the cycle started by Reagan when amnesty was granted in the 80s if we don’t take measures to secure the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you limit yourself to this nonsensical idea of allowing the Dreamers to become citizens at all?
> 
> Reality check:  Citizenship is *NOT *doled out on a first come first served basis.  That's just the way it is.
> 
> What do you not understand about the concept that legal status need *NOT* end in citizenship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats and RINO Lindsey Graham are for a path to citizenship for the Dreamers, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lindsey Graham will probably become a D after the next election cycle.
> 
> I'd let the Dreamers stay, but the only "_paths to citizenship_" ought to be connected to things like maybe a stint in the military, and if that is not doable for them, maybe  using a college degree in a field the government could utilize - say two years service working for the government (i.e. a doctor at the VA or maybe utilizing an engineering degree in a needed field.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree.  There is another post somewhere in this thread that  I state that I would not mind if the dreamers are granted legal status but not citizenship with the condition that immigration law is enforced so that we are not repeating the cycle.
Click to expand...


This is one reason I keep repeating the same thing over and over.  When you make people citizens, then their families are eligible for  citizenship.  The more people that become citizens, the fewer people are left to care about the Republic our forefathers founded.

The better idea is to allow employers hire whomever they want.  Then make employers pay more in taxes.  Instead of the permanent big business tax breaks Trump gave the mega corps, they should have been required to *earn* them.

Hire an all American work force, get a tax break.  Take Americans off the welfare dole, the unemployment line or off disability, get another tax break.  Pay a starting wage 15 percent above poverty level wages, get another tax break.  Soon, the employer would be looking at hiring low wage foreigners and paying 39 percent in taxes OR hiring Americans at decent wages and paying under 20 percent in corporate taxes.  That way, foreigners can work here without becoming citizens; corporations get to choose what is most profitable for them (and common sense should tell you which road leads to the most profit.)


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Coyote said:


> I base it on his own words.



Do you have any specific examples?   Proven factual evidence?  No, you don't.
What you are doing is deriving the conclusion you DESIRE based on hearse and emotion.

You WANT to hear that Trump is a racist....so you mentally build the case based on your emotions.
This is actually quite common for Left brained (notice I haven't yet said hair-brained) Leftist.   

Unlike you, as always,  I back my assertions with evidence from credible (non leftist, emotionally biased) sources.
Liberals are more emotion-driven than conservatives


----------



## danielpalos

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Georgia has had the same problem for years:
> 
> Georgia's Harsh Immigration Law Costs Millions in Unharvested Crops
> 
> Migrant workers still in need
> 
> "_Crops went untended as the season's harvest began, and more than $1 million a day vanished as the human-fueled agricultural harvest machine of migrant labor in the United States stalled_."
> 
> Ben Carson's Immigrant Visa Idea Favored By Farmers As Nation's Crops Rot
> 
> It's been an issue in Alabama for years as well and some say this is a problem nationwide (and has been for as long as the crackdowns have been going on):
> 
> Alabama Illegal Immigrant Crackdown Destroys Farm Business
> 
> Crops rot while Trump-led immigration backlash idles farm work
> 
> 
> 
> If they used the H2A visa, then there would be no problems for them, they would have all the labor they need since there are no annual caps for the H2A nor is there a limit to how many a single farmer can bring in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Illegals are here and they need to work instead of relying from welfare. Why is that so bad?
> 2. If it’s easier and cost effective to hire H2A don’t you think all of them could have done that?
> 
> Your opinion does not reflect the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) Illegals are here, and they need to be removed. Then we don't have to worry about if they are or not receiving welfare or tax refunds they aren't entitled to via the ITIN they file with.
> 
> 2)Doesn't matter if its easier or cost effective, it is what is at their disposal they refuse to use. Maybe they should mechanize and they won't have to deal with field labor ever again. SHRUG
> 
> My opinion does reflect reality, as I showed, your limited samples don't represent anything outside of your limited samples. Do you really think there are illegals working in naked/titi bars and hospitals? SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Based from your very limited experience. You have no clue the importance of illegals contribution to California’s economy. You have no clue. Get real.
> 
> 2. You own a business? Really?
> Running a business cost effective is VERY important just incase you don’t know what you are talking about.
> 
> Based from I heard from you have very limited knowledge of labor force. Your opinion does not reflect reality.
> I never said illegals work at titi bars and hospitals. I just gave you the examples the scopes of my experience in the labor force. Not from a landscapers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegals aren't contributing to Californians economy, they use more in services then they contribute.  SHRUG
> 
> Yes, my own business. That's right you need to be cost effective when running a business. SMFH
> 
> Your labor force experiences seem to frequent industries that don't have illegals working in them. SHRUG
Click to expand...

Right wing studies seem to be flawed.


----------



## danielpalos

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I base it on his own words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any specific examples?   Proven factual evidence?  No, you don't.
> What you are doing is deriving the conclusion you DESIRE based on hearse and emotion.
> 
> You WANT to hear that Trump is a racist....so you mentally build the case based on your emotions.
> This is actually quite common for Left brained (notice I haven't yet said hair-brained) Leftist.
> 
> Unlike you, as always,  I back my assertions with evidence from credible (non leftist, emotionally biased) sources.
> Liberals are more emotion-driven than conservatives
Click to expand...

the right wing has nothing but fallacy instead of better solutions at lower cost.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

danielpalos said:


> Right wing studies seem to be flawed.



To Leftist-Brained individuals....this will seem to be the case.
But it is scientifically proven the Right is more Logic based while the Left is more emotion based.

Basically, Men on the Left think like women.   Fact.
Women are more emotionally biased in their thoughts than non-Leftist men.  Another fact.
While it may not be "politically correct" to present these facts, I don't give a shit about being PC.
I'm driven by facts.

Liberals are more emotion-driven than conservatives


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

danielpalos said:


> the right wing has nothing but fallacy instead of better solutions at lower cost.



And.....

That would be another emotionally based" statement lacking in credibility or substantiation.

Again, typical for your Leftist brained, emotional thinking

Here.....Read.....Learn....Grow.....Evolve....
Liberals are more emotion-driven than conservatives

However, most on the right understand (being capable of rational, un-emotional thinking) that your rising above your emotions is unlikely.  Hence your propensity to remain a supporter of corrupt Leftist politicians and Media because they have captured your emotions fully through clever propaganda.

Note that not ALL women are emotion based in their thinking.  But ALL Leftist men are.


----------



## danielpalos

BasicHumanUnit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right wing studies seem to be flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To Leftist-Brained individuals....this will seem to be the case.
> But it is scientifically proven the Right is more Logic based while the Left is more emotion based.
> 
> Basically, Men on the Left think like women.   Fact.
> Women are more emotionally biased in their thoughts than non-Leftist men.  Another fact.
> While it may not be "politically correct" to present these facts, I don't give a shit about being PC.
> I'm driven by facts.
> 
> Liberals are more emotion-driven than conservatives
Click to expand...

Financing a tax cut while claiming it is Your money, is emotional, not rational.


----------



## danielpalos

BasicHumanUnit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing has nothing but fallacy instead of better solutions at lower cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And.....
> 
> That would be another emotionally based" statement lacking in credibility or substantiation.
> 
> Again, typical for your Leftist brained, emotional thinking
> 
> Here.....Read.....Learn....Grow.....Evolve....
> Liberals are more emotion-driven than conservatives
> 
> However, most on the right understand (being capable of rational, un-emotional thinking) that your rising above your emotions is unlikely.  Hence your propensity to remain a supporter of corrupt Leftist politicians and Media because they have captured your emotions fully through clever propaganda.
Click to expand...

The right wing may be right, twice a day.  The rest is usually just fallacy.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

danielpalos said:


> Financing a tax cut while claiming it is Your money, is emotional, not rational.



Yet, you would assert that tax increases are somehow NOT "your money" ?
Again, your emotional bias clearly at work.

Thanks for playing...but I admit, your simple game bores me quickly.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing has nothing but fallacy instead of better solutions at lower cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And.....
> 
> That would be another emotionally based" statement lacking in credibility or substantiation.
> 
> Again, typical for your Leftist brained, emotional thinking
> 
> Here.....Read.....Learn....Grow.....Evolve....
> Liberals are more emotion-driven than conservatives
> 
> However, most on the right understand (being capable of rational, un-emotional thinking) that your rising above your emotions is unlikely.  Hence your propensity to remain a supporter of corrupt Leftist politicians and Media because they have captured your emotions fully through clever propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing may be right, twice a day.  The rest is usually just fallacy.
Click to expand...


You need some new material.

So, what.  Trump is a racist.  Did you see the new thread I created today entitled Racist Pig?


----------



## danielpalos

BasicHumanUnit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Financing a tax cut while claiming it is Your money, is emotional, not rational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, you would assert that tax increases are somehow NOT "your money" ?
> Again, your emotional bias clearly at work.
> 
> Thanks for playing...but I admit, your simple game bores me quickly.
Click to expand...

Government has to be funded.  Our debt keeps growing and the right wing has no solutions; yet, they claim they are more fiscally responsible than the, tax and spend, left.


----------



## Coyote

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I base it on his own words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any specific examples?   Proven factual evidence?  No, you don't.
> What you are doing is deriving the conclusion you DESIRE based on hearse and emotion.
> 
> You WANT to hear that Trump is a racist....so you mentally build the case based on your emotions.
> This is actually quite common for Left brained (notice I haven't yet said hair-brained) Leftist.
> 
> Unlike you, as always,  I back my assertions with evidence from credible (non leftist, emotionally biased) sources.
> Liberals are more emotion-driven than conservatives
Click to expand...

You are so busy with your labels you can’t be bothered to read what people write can you?  For example I already said I am on the fence with the racist thing because I found Slade’s argument that it is class driven compelling.  I am willing to concede Trump is just an asshole or garden variety bigot, but not a racist.

As to his own words...regarding his views on other groups...his attacks on a judge for being “Mexican” (he wasn’t), Haitians all have AIDS (really?), Mexico mostly sends over murderers and rapists (I would like to see data supporting that claim)...those all reflect an underlying bigotry.

As to sources....you need to learn how to appropriately use them rather than throwing it out there like mud, and hoping it sticks.

Speaking of emotionally driven where is your credible evidence that large numbers of illegals vote?


And just for you....another interesting non partisan study...Unconscious Reactions Separate Liberals and Conservatives .... conservatives are more fearful...


----------



## Circe

Humorme said:


> Lindsey Graham will probably become a D after the next election cycle.



No, he and McCain partner as the chief hawks in the Senate; military favoring Senators will never be Dems.


----------



## task0778

About the question of credible evidence that millions of illegals voted, the following is from Investors Business Daily.   Couldn't say if they are biased or not but this piece does represent the views of a lot of people.   Doesn't make it true of course, but IMHO those who claim there's almost no illegal voting at all are refusing to face reality.

excerpt:

_Most follow the same theme: Trump foolishly followed the faulty analysis of Gregg Phillips of True The Vote, an online anti-voter-fraud site and app. Phillips estimates that illegals cast three million votes in the 2016 election. He's wrong, say the media. Heck, even the liberal fact-checking site FactCheck.org says so.

But, in fact, it's almost certain that illegals did vote — and in significant numbers. Whether it was three million or not is another question.

While states control the voter registration process, some states are so notoriously slipshod in their controls (California, Virginia and New York — all of which have political movements to legalize voting by noncitizens — come to mind) that it would be shocking if many illegals didn't vote. Remember, a low-ball estimate says there are at least 11 million to 12 million illegals in the U.S., but that's based on faulty Census data. More likely estimates put the number at 20 million to 30 million.

What's disappointing is that instead of at least seriously considering Trump's charge, many media reports merely parrot leftist talking points and anti-Trump rhetoric by pushing the idea that Republicans and others not of the progressive left who seek to limit voting to citizens only are racist, xenophobic nuts.

But there is evidence to back Trump's claims. A 2014 study in the online Electoral Studies Journal shows that in the 2008 and 2010 elections, illegal immigrant votes were in fact quite high.

"We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections," wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.

More specifically, they write, "Noncitizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress."

Specifically, the authors say that illegals may have cast as many as 2.8 million votes in 2008 and 2010. That's a lot of votes. And when you consider the population of illegal inhabitants has only grown since then, it's not unreasonable to suppose that their vote has, too.

Critics note that a Harvard team in 2015 had responded to the study, calling it "biased." But that report included this gem: "Further, the likely percent of noncitizen voters in recent U.S. elections is 0."

Really? That's simply preposterous, frankly, as anyone who has lived in California can attest. Leftist get-out-the-vote groups openly urge noncitizens to vote during election time, and the registration process is notoriously loose. To suggest there is no illegal voting at all is absurd.

What's appalling, as we said, is not the media's skepticism, but its denial. But why? Illegal votes shouldn't be allowed to sway U.S. elections. So why tolerate them?

When the far left began insinuating that the Russians had hacked the election, the media treated the nonsupported claims with the utmost of respect. They still do. But not Trump's suggestion that illegals voted, and in large numbers, mainly for Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton.

And, yes, Trump is right: Illegal votes may in part explain why Hillary now has a nearly two-million-vote lead in the popular vote, even though she lost convincingly in the Electoral College. A Rasmussen Reports poll earlier this year found that 53% of the Democratic Party supports letting illegals vote, even though it's against the law. It's pretty clear why.

Yes, there is room for skepticism of any claim that's made. But every vote cast by someone who isn't by law permitted to vote disenfranchises American citizens. The charge should at least be taken seriously._

Trump Is Right — Millions Of Illegals Probably Did Vote In 2016 |  Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD


----------



## danielpalos

task0778 said:


> About the question of credible evidence that millions of illegals voted, the following is from Investors Business Daily.   Couldn't say if they are biased or not but this piece does represent the views of a lot of people.   Doesn't make it true of course, but IMHO those who claim there's almost no illegal voting at all are refusing to face reality.
> 
> excerpt:
> 
> _Most follow the same theme: Trump foolishly followed the faulty analysis of Gregg Phillips of True The Vote, an online anti-voter-fraud site and app. Phillips estimates that illegals cast three million votes in the 2016 election. He's wrong, say the media. Heck, even the liberal fact-checking site FactCheck.org says so.
> 
> But, in fact, it's almost certain that illegals did vote — and in significant numbers. Whether it was three million or not is another question.
> 
> While states control the voter registration process, some states are so notoriously slipshod in their controls (California, Virginia and New York — all of which have political movements to legalize voting by noncitizens — come to mind) that it would be shocking if many illegals didn't vote. Remember, a low-ball estimate says there are at least 11 million to 12 million illegals in the U.S., but that's based on faulty Census data. More likely estimates put the number at 20 million to 30 million.
> 
> What's disappointing is that instead of at least seriously considering Trump's charge, many media reports merely parrot leftist talking points and anti-Trump rhetoric by pushing the idea that Republicans and others not of the progressive left who seek to limit voting to citizens only are racist, xenophobic nuts.
> 
> But there is evidence to back Trump's claims. A 2014 study in the online Electoral Studies Journal shows that in the 2008 and 2010 elections, illegal immigrant votes were in fact quite high.
> 
> "We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections," wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.
> 
> More specifically, they write, "Noncitizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress."
> 
> Specifically, the authors say that illegals may have cast as many as 2.8 million votes in 2008 and 2010. That's a lot of votes. And when you consider the population of illegal inhabitants has only grown since then, it's not unreasonable to suppose that their vote has, too.
> 
> Critics note that a Harvard team in 2015 had responded to the study, calling it "biased." But that report included this gem: "Further, the likely percent of noncitizen voters in recent U.S. elections is 0."
> 
> Really? That's simply preposterous, frankly, as anyone who has lived in California can attest. Leftist get-out-the-vote groups openly urge noncitizens to vote during election time, and the registration process is notoriously loose. To suggest there is no illegal voting at all is absurd.
> 
> What's appalling, as we said, is not the media's skepticism, but its denial. But why? Illegal votes shouldn't be allowed to sway U.S. elections. So why tolerate them?
> 
> When the far left began insinuating that the Russians had hacked the election, the media treated the nonsupported claims with the utmost of respect. They still do. But not Trump's suggestion that illegals voted, and in large numbers, mainly for Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton.
> 
> And, yes, Trump is right: Illegal votes may in part explain why Hillary now has a nearly two-million-vote lead in the popular vote, even though she lost convincingly in the Electoral College. A Rasmussen Reports poll earlier this year found that 53% of the Democratic Party supports letting illegals vote, even though it's against the law. It's pretty clear why.
> 
> Yes, there is room for skepticism of any claim that's made. But every vote cast by someone who isn't by law permitted to vote disenfranchises American citizens. The charge should at least be taken seriously._
> 
> Trump Is Right — Millions Of Illegals Probably Did Vote In 2016 |  Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD


If illegals voted, are you sure they all voted blue and not red; especially in low population red States, where it would make more of an electoral difference.


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i posted several times here. I know tons of businesses and business owners and farmers. These where I based my facts and opinions when it come to this topic.
> 
> The economy is booming. Without these illegals the economy will not be this good especially here in California the 6th largest economy of the world. That’s a fact.
> 
> California Crops Rot as Immigration Crackdown Creates Farmworker Shortage
> 
> 
> 
> The farmers have brought it on themselves if they are not using the H2A visa as there is no limit on the amount of workers they can bring in.
> 
> Your opinion is not factual and basing what you claim as facts on the few people you know isn't a large enough pool to make a claim on.
> 
> So lets look at your link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unclear exactly how widespread the labor shortage is for farmers throughout the country, which would have a bigger impact on prices consumers pay. Ultimately, drought and flooding have a more significant impact on farms. Low oil prices could also offset any impact of the worker shortage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Its unclear how widespread the labor shortage is? Drought and flooding have a bigger impact? Oil prices can offset worker shortages?
> 
> Looks like opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I suggest you don't claim opinion as fact as it always comes back to bite you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion is based from what you read. My opinion is based from reality and experience with real farmers and business owners. I already explained myself how dumb is H2A program is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMFAO What you think and what you see is based on you perceived notions in specific areas. Your opinion is based on your very limited circle of friends.
> 
> Whether you think the H2A is stupid or not has no bearing, it is there for the specific purpose of farmers to use, and if they fail to use it then it is there failure and nobody else's. I am a business owner in the Landscape industry and I have no problem getting white/black guys who all have legal documents (as I use E-verify) to work for me. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Limited circle of friends?  Really?
> 
> Are you telling just because you a landscaper you know more about labor force than me? You are funnier than I thought. Talking about limited.
> 
> I never said H2A was stupid. It’s just not cost effective. If you think you are accurate then we should not have a shortage of illegals here in California and Arizona. You probably don’t even know a single farmer.
> 
> Let me repeat it again. Hiring a people via H2A will require for the farmer to provide.
> 1. Board and lodging.
> 2. Corral them making sure they don’t escape.
> 3. Responsible for sending them back.
> 4. Some form of health care assistance.
> 5. Some form of clothing.
> 6. Do you honestly believe an H2A individual that came all the way from India or Philippines etc etc will fly here just to pick strawberries? These farmers will send their best educated kids here to seek better living aside from farming. That’s a fact.
> 
> So what the point when there are illegals everywhere?
> 
> I have not met a single farmers in Asia or India that are rich.
> 
> You can shrug however you want but it is what it is.
> 
> I have not seen black and white landscapers for a very long time. Few blacks probably in Los Angeles ghetto.
> I’m talking about Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside County.
> 
> I’m pretty sure you probably don’t even know the labor shortages of rebuilding Houston after Harvey and Irma in Florida.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know if you grasp what I stated and the links I showed. You on the other hand have shown nothing in regards to the "labor force". You have espoused what you claim is from your friends and their business practices, hardly indicative of the actual labor force. SHRUG
> 
> Actually farmers are hiring H2A visa holders via employment agencies.
> Home
> and
> https://www.manta.com/c/mb4dd4m/h2a-placement-services-inc
> 
> So while you show what the farmer would have to do directly related to himself hiring the H2A, you, as usual, fail in knowing anything about the issue. LMFAO
> 
> Again, you demonstrate a small section of the US: _I’m talking about Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside County. _and try to exclaim it is indicative of the entire labor force. You really need to get out more.
> 
> Do you understand or even know why there were labor shortages in Florida and Houston?
Click to expand...


You don’t have a grasp of what the reality is. 
Do you expect me to give you a link of how many general contractors, plumbers, farmers, hospitals, bars & restaurants, franchises, titi bars, day care, clubs, landscapers, roofers, janitorial services, temp. agencies, city inspectors, developers, manufacturing business owners I know?  From California, Arizona, Nevada, Portland, Washington, Hawaii, New York to Florida? 

Dude you are not dealing with a lightweight. It’s funny that ignorant people like you don’t even know that people like me exist. You know my company if I told you. 

Of course I know what is going on in Houston and Florida. For you to have an information you use a Google. I don’t. 

Farmers I talked on regular basis knows several farmers all over the country and they told them the same thing. Because I’m sensitive to this subject I asked them those questions. H2A cost more money. Period. And it’s so hard for you to grasp the reality. True farmers hire some H2A because of illegal shortages if possible they try hard to avoid that because it’s not cost effective. That’s a fact. I never said they never hire H2A. 

You are trying to minimize the counties I know that I have not seen a white or black landscapers for a long time. Maybe you are not aware that is mostly the Southern Ca. Compared to your very limited area of one city. Very funny.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

JoeMoma said:


> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!



You are conflating a number of separate issues.

Sanctuary city policies do not "establish a permanent residence", or allow immigrants to become legally employed.


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s funny. There are slaughterhouse here and I don’t see anyone but Hispanics.
> Oh yes guarantee you 100% they will be missed if those illegals are gone.
> I don’t see 16 or even 25 yo white boys or girls working in restaurants as buss boys here. They don’t even work at McDonald’s. Kids are not the same like it used to be. Get that straight.
> 
> Did you research what happened in Alabama?
> 
> Where are you getting your opinions?
> 
> 
> 
> So are you assuming because they are Hispanics then they are also illegals? Sure seems you are associating there heritage to them being illegally here. SMFH
> 
> Up here in Northern California white boys and girls are working as bus boys and dishwashers in local restaurants. I have 2 McDonalds within 2 miles of where I live, the people working in them have every color of skin tone one could imagine, and they all speak English without accents. :SHRUG:
> 
> Maybe you should actually research the subject verse reading headlines and basing your opinion off things you don't seem to adept at truly knowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. I’m not assuming anything because of their looks. I talked to my friends that are business owners from different categories just about everything. From how much they get paid, who work harder Mexicans or Salvadorians or Guatemalans or where they live etc etc.
> 
> I know several McDonald’s owners and restaurants. Do you mind telling me where that McDonald’s in northern Ca you are telling me? I know some of them in that locations.
> Kids now are so different now compared from a long time ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you are, your claims are based on your limited sample, the few people you know. Hell I have kids in high school and out of high school that send me resumes for jobs they want, at least 3 a week. With the equipment I use and my insurance requirements I am limited who I can hire. There are 2 McDonalds along Highway 65 between Rocklin/Roseville and Sheridan, both have high school kids of all colors working in them, so does the Taco Bell, Jack in the Box, Burger King, Subway, Togos, Red Robin, Panda Express, Carls Jr, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah! You are saying kids applying jobs to your landscape. So what happened to the your older employees with experience? I have not seen a black and white landscapers for a very long time let alone kids.
> 
> Sure there are places in America that employ kids. I never said ALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing happened to my older employees, they still work for me. My climber is Black and from Barbados, my groundsman are white. My youngest worker is 23, my oldest is 53. You inferred kids weren't working in these places, at least now you are admitting they do work in fast food and various other industries.
Click to expand...


I never said the entire nation. Again kids are not the same like it used to be. You are giving me an example based from your very limited experience in your area in one city.. As I said repeatedly I know McDonald’s franchises owners. It’s very hard to find a reliable kids now a days. They have different kinds of mentality. You go to different city where majority are blacks but workers are Hispanics. You go to car washes about 99% Hispanics. etc etc etc. 

There are several documentaries broadcasted all over why and where there are no white and black Americans workers in a certain areas.


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Georgia has had the same problem for years:
> 
> Georgia's Harsh Immigration Law Costs Millions in Unharvested Crops
> 
> Migrant workers still in need
> 
> "_Crops went untended as the season's harvest began, and more than $1 million a day vanished as the human-fueled agricultural harvest machine of migrant labor in the United States stalled_."
> 
> Ben Carson's Immigrant Visa Idea Favored By Farmers As Nation's Crops Rot
> 
> It's been an issue in Alabama for years as well and some say this is a problem nationwide (and has been for as long as the crackdowns have been going on):
> 
> Alabama Illegal Immigrant Crackdown Destroys Farm Business
> 
> Crops rot while Trump-led immigration backlash idles farm work
> 
> 
> 
> If they used the H2A visa, then there would be no problems for them, they would have all the labor they need since there are no annual caps for the H2A nor is there a limit to how many a single farmer can bring in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Illegals are here and they need to work instead of relying from welfare. Why is that so bad?
> 2. If it’s easier and cost effective to hire H2A don’t you think all of them could have done that?
> 
> Your opinion does not reflect the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) Illegals are here, and they need to be removed. Then we don't have to worry about if they are or not receiving welfare or tax refunds they aren't entitled to via the ITIN they file with.
> 
> 2)Doesn't matter if its easier or cost effective, it is what is at their disposal they refuse to use. Maybe they should mechanize and they won't have to deal with field labor ever again. SHRUG
> 
> My opinion does reflect reality, as I showed, your limited samples don't represent anything outside of your limited samples. Do you really think there are illegals working in naked/titi bars and hospitals? SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Based from your very limited experience. You have no clue the importance of illegals contribution to California’s economy. You have no clue. Get real.
> 
> 2. You own a business? Really?
> Running a business cost effective is VERY important just incase you don’t know what you are talking about.
> 
> Based from I heard from you have very limited knowledge of labor force. Your opinion does not reflect reality.
> I never said illegals work at titi bars and hospitals. I just gave you the examples the scopes of my experience in the labor force. Not from a landscapers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Illegals aren't contributing to Californians economy, they use more in services then they contribute.  SHRUG
> 
> 2. Yes, my own business. That's right you need to be cost effective when running a business. SMFH
> 
> Your labor force experiences seem to frequent industries that don't have illegals working in them. SHRUG
Click to expand...


1. This is exactly what you are trying to imply from the beginning. Trying to minimize the importance or impact of these illegal contributions to California’s  economy.
You are telling me of the millions illegals we have in California they just sit there and waste tax dollars money. All of them are not receiving freebies. Lots of them also pay taxes that they will never see benefits. 

Yes I can tell you 100% they contributed a big chunk to California’s economy. Without them I can assure you that California’s economy will not be this good. 

2. If you really own a business. How many times I have to tell you that hiring H2A was not cost effective for the farmers? Yet you keep insisting H2A was good for the farmers. 

3. True. Again but I know business owners that hired lots of illegals from different categories because they can’t find others that will not do the jobs.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> You don’t have a grasp of what the reality is.
> Do you expect me to give you a link of how many general contractors, plumbers, farmers, hospitals, bars & restaurants, franchises, titi bars, day care, clubs, landscapers, roofers, janitorial services, temp. agencies, city inspectors, developers, manufacturing business owners I know?  From California, Arizona, Nevada, Portland, Washington, Hawaii, New York to Florida?


No, I expect you to grasp what has been stated and shown. Illegals are not a majority of workers in any industry, and yes citizens do work in every aspect of every industry. 



charwin95 said:


> Dude you are not dealing with a lightweight. It’s funny that ignorant people like you don’t even know that people like me exist. You know my company if I told you.


You're right, I'm not dealing with a lightweight, I'm dealing with a moron that doesn't comprehend basic English. SMFH



charwin95 said:


> Of course I know what is going on in Houston and Florida. For you to have an information you use a Google. I don’t.


Really? You have no idea what I have or who I know or where I go to work.  



charwin95 said:


> Farmers I talked on regular basis knows several farmers all over the country and they told them the same thing. Because I’m sensitive to this subject I asked them those questions. H2A cost more money. Period. And it’s so hard for you to grasp the reality. True farmers hire some H2A because of illegal shortages if possible they try hard to avoid that because it’s not cost effective. That’s a fact. I never said they never hire H2A.


Again you show you don't comprehend anything I stated or showed, your stuck on your stupid talking points. 



charwin95 said:


> You are trying to minimize the counties I know that I have not seen a white or black landscapers for a long time. Maybe you are not aware that is mostly the Southern Ca. Compared to your very limited area of one city. Very funny.


Northern California is not at all like Southern California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, etc. Again you completely missed the point.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you assuming because they are Hispanics then they are also illegals? Sure seems you are associating there heritage to them being illegally here. SMFH
> 
> Up here in Northern California white boys and girls are working as bus boys and dishwashers in local restaurants. I have 2 McDonalds within 2 miles of where I live, the people working in them have every color of skin tone one could imagine, and they all speak English without accents. :SHRUG:
> 
> Maybe you should actually research the subject verse reading headlines and basing your opinion off things you don't seem to adept at truly knowing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. I’m not assuming anything because of their looks. I talked to my friends that are business owners from different categories just about everything. From how much they get paid, who work harder Mexicans or Salvadorians or Guatemalans or where they live etc etc.
> 
> I know several McDonald’s owners and restaurants. Do you mind telling me where that McDonald’s in northern Ca you are telling me? I know some of them in that locations.
> Kids now are so different now compared from a long time ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you are, your claims are based on your limited sample, the few people you know. Hell I have kids in high school and out of high school that send me resumes for jobs they want, at least 3 a week. With the equipment I use and my insurance requirements I am limited who I can hire. There are 2 McDonalds along Highway 65 between Rocklin/Roseville and Sheridan, both have high school kids of all colors working in them, so does the Taco Bell, Jack in the Box, Burger King, Subway, Togos, Red Robin, Panda Express, Carls Jr, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah! You are saying kids applying jobs to your landscape. So what happened to the your older employees with experience? I have not seen a black and white landscapers for a very long time let alone kids.
> 
> Sure there are places in America that employ kids. I never said ALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing happened to my older employees, they still work for me. My climber is Black and from Barbados, my groundsman are white. My youngest worker is 23, my oldest is 53. You inferred kids weren't working in these places, at least now you are admitting they do work in fast food and various other industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said the entire nation. Again kids are not the same like it used to be. You are giving me an example based from your very limited experience in your area in one city.. As I said repeatedly I know McDonald’s franchises owners. It’s very hard to find a reliable kids now a days. They have different kinds of mentality. You go to different city where majority are blacks but workers are Hispanics. You go to car washes about 99% Hispanics. etc etc etc.
> 
> There are several documentaries broadcasted all over why and where there are no white and black Americans workers in a certain areas.
Click to expand...

That's right you never said the entire nation, you limited yourself to the LA area after it was pointed out  that it is not indicative of the rest of the US, which you then claimed you knew people all over the US and you can get info from them on all things.  And then you make the stupid claim once again. What you may have in LA is not indicative of the rest of the US. SMFH

Several documentaries saying no whites or blacks working in certain areas? LMFAO Try watching those documentaries again and listen to them very carefully, you may realize your claim here is that of your miss understanding of Basic English Comprehension.


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. Some has green cards that’s been here for decades but the percentage is extremely very low. The % you are talking about doesn’t reflect the reality. Farmers don’t have much choices but use the available labor they have for several decades.
> H2A visa is more expensive than using the illegals because you have to corral them making sure they don’t escape, provide food and housing and some forms of clothing. Why bother when you can hire existing people?
> Some of these H2A people coming from Asia don’t even show up to their assigned sponsors. They just disappear from the airport.
> 
> A long time ago maybe 10 years or so kids in my neighborhood cuts grass, clean pools and wash cars etc. Today not a single one of these kids can be seen except Mexicans just like my gardener for 5 years. I pay him $145 a month to maintain my lawn 3 times a month no more than 45 minutes each time. Even if we as a whole want to hire Americans. Where are they?
> 
> I know several people that own home care where they converted their houses to take care old people here in Ca, Ar, and Hawaii. No a single white or black Americans but ONLY Mexicans or Asians are available making from $12 to $18/hour with overtime.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect? Yet you post no link for your support as to percentages, just your opinion based non-sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most illegals do not work in agriculture — only about 4 percent of the illegal-immigrant population is employed in farming. In no state is farming the predominant occupation of illegal immigrants; even in places such as California, where labor-intensive fruit-and-vegetable farming attracts a relatively large illegal workforce, the main occupations of illegals are in hospitality (restaurants and hotels), services, and transportation. Likewise, most of the people working in agriculture are not illegals: *The great majority of the farming workforce is composed of legal workers,* with *illegals constituting about one-fourth of the total.* Illegals make up a larger share of the farm workforce than they do any other labor pool, but they remain a small though not inconsequential minority of workers.
> 
> Read more at: The Specter of the $20 Avocado
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legal workers includes, H2A workers, LPR's, and citizens. SMFH
> 
> How about this from PEW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although they were 5% of the overall workforce in 2012, unauthorized immigrants represent a notably higher share of workers in some industries where they are concentrated. *They were 16% of employees in the agriculture industry*, 12% of employees in the construction industry and 9% of employees in the leisure and hospitality industry.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrants are particularly concentrated in some subsets of each major industry. In 2012, they represented 24% of workers in the landscaping industry, 23% of those in private household employment, 20% of those in apparel manufacturing, 20% in crop production, 19% in the dry cleaning and laundry industry and 19% of those in building maintenance.
> 
> 
> Chapter 2: Industries of Unauthorized Immigrant Workers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, like I previously stated, they are not a majority workforce in any industry in the US.
> 
> Where I live the lawn care guys are all white with the exception of the commercial landscapers that do the city contracts. As for in home health care, I see Asians predominantly, whites and blacks. House cleaning services I see both Hispanic and White, in fact I have a white US Citizen that comes and cleans my house weekly. SHRUG
> 
> Just because you see something in specific areas doesn't mean it is that way everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very funny.
> Again I post based on experience and reality.
> I asked you to provide me the locations you are talking about. Where is that?
> 
> I do not need to show you a link to support what I’m saying. So if I know a large farmer owners In California and Arizona. what made you think the next door farmers are doing any different?
> I already prove to you that H2A is a joke and not cost effective.
> I also used Molly maids to clean both of my houses and they are illegals from Cuba and Mexico.
> 
> Where you live? That’s funny. You are giving me your very limited experience. How many health care owners that you know one? How about If i will tell you about 40 home care owners located here in California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada and Hawaii.
> 
> Funny. I never said illegals are the majority of workforce in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you posted mostly on hearsay from your little circle of people you know. SHRUG
> 
> I know farmers too in California and Texas, in fact I do work for some, their experiences are much different. And as I pointed out roughly 1/4 of farm workers are illegals. There is not a single industry in which illegals make up the majority of workers. You proved the H2A is a Joke? LMFAO Your opinion is not proof of anything. SMFH
> 
> You really need to brush up on your English Comprehension.
> 
> I gave you my opinion and what I see along with numerous links that you don't seem to adept at understanding.  Either back up your inept opinion or come up with something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suddenly you know a farmer. Very funny. I posted over and over on separate and different threads about farmers I know for almost 3 years. If you think I have a limited knowledge of workforce. But for sure I know far more than a landscaper.
> 
> Again I never said illegals are the majority of American workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Suddenly I know a farmer? I deal with many orchards in my business. SHRUG
> Wow you know a farmer or two for 3 years, I'm impressed. SMFH
> 
> You know more than a landscaper? LMFAO Were you born stupid or dropped on your head somewhere along the line?
Click to expand...


Now you are putting words in my mouth.  I said for almost 3 years since I’ve been here I posted here over and over about farmer owners. It doesn’t mean I just met them 3 years ago. 
Oh yes I know landscapers business owners and lawn designers. Is that a surprise? As far as labor work force from different categories yes I can assure I know far far more than a lousy landscapers. 
Since you started the attack. You know this is coming. 

Stupid? Really? This is when I know I’m in control and winning because you are running out of worthless intelligent rebuttal. And I know you are going to come down to this.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they used the H2A visa, then there would be no problems for them, they would have all the labor they need since there are no annual caps for the H2A nor is there a limit to how many a single farmer can bring in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Illegals are here and they need to work instead of relying from welfare. Why is that so bad?
> 2. If it’s easier and cost effective to hire H2A don’t you think all of them could have done that?
> 
> Your opinion does not reflect the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) Illegals are here, and they need to be removed. Then we don't have to worry about if they are or not receiving welfare or tax refunds they aren't entitled to via the ITIN they file with.
> 
> 2)Doesn't matter if its easier or cost effective, it is what is at their disposal they refuse to use. Maybe they should mechanize and they won't have to deal with field labor ever again. SHRUG
> 
> My opinion does reflect reality, as I showed, your limited samples don't represent anything outside of your limited samples. Do you really think there are illegals working in naked/titi bars and hospitals? SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Based from your very limited experience. You have no clue the importance of illegals contribution to California’s economy. You have no clue. Get real.
> 
> 2. You own a business? Really?
> Running a business cost effective is VERY important just incase you don’t know what you are talking about.
> 
> Based from I heard from you have very limited knowledge of labor force. Your opinion does not reflect reality.
> I never said illegals work at titi bars and hospitals. I just gave you the examples the scopes of my experience in the labor force. Not from a landscapers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Illegals aren't contributing to Californians economy, they use more in services then they contribute.  SHRUG
> 
> 2. Yes, my own business. That's right you need to be cost effective when running a business. SMFH
> 
> Your labor force experiences seem to frequent industries that don't have illegals working in them. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. This is exactly what you are trying to imply from the beginning. Trying to minimize the importance or impact of these illegal contributions to California’s  economy.
> You are telling me of the millions illegals we have in California they just sit there and waste tax dollars money. All of them are not receiving freebies. Lots of them also pay taxes that they will never see benefits.
> 
> Yes I can tell you 100% they contributed a big chunk to California’s economy. Without them I can assure you that California’s economy will not be this good.
> 
> 2. If you really own a business. How many times I have to tell you that hiring H2A was not cost effective for the farmers? Yet you keep insisting H2A was good for the farmers.
> 
> 3. True. Again but I know business owners that hired lots of illegals from different categories because they can’t find others that will not do the jobs.
Click to expand...

They pay local taxes and user taxes. That is it. What benefits will they never see by paying taxes? If they are working illegally and receiving a paycheck via fraudulent documents they may be able to use Totalization Agreements when they retire to obtain SS. If they are DACA or have been paroled in the US and granted work authorization they can obtain SS when they retire. They can obtain workers comp if they get hurt on the job, etc. 

California didn't collapse when they had a day without illegals 15 years ago, in fact it didn't even effect California. SHRUG

I never claimed H2A was good or cost effective (again you have poor English comprehension skills), yet it is there for one intended purpose and if it is not used for that purpose then whose fault is it? Would it be cost effective for me to lower my hourly rate to compete against a company that cheats by using unfair labor practices?

Every industry has illegal workers in it. If you know people that intentionally hire illegals they are violating the law and both them and you should be jailed.


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t have a grasp of what the reality is.
> Do you expect me to give you a link of how many general contractors, plumbers, farmers, hospitals, bars & restaurants, franchises, titi bars, day care, clubs, landscapers, roofers, janitorial services, temp. agencies, city inspectors, developers, manufacturing business owners I know?  From California, Arizona, Nevada, Portland, Washington, Hawaii, New York to Florida?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I expect you to grasp what has been stated and shown. Illegals are not a majority of workers in any industry, and yes citizens do work in every aspect of every industry.
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you are not dealing with a lightweight. It’s funny that ignorant people like you don’t even know that people like me exist. You know my company if I told you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, I'm not dealing with a lightweight, I'm dealing with a moron that doesn't comprehend basic English. SMFH
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I know what is going on in Houston and Florida. For you to have an information you use a Google. I don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? You have no idea what I have or who I know or where I go to work.
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Farmers I talked on regular basis knows several farmers all over the country and they told them the same thing. Because I’m sensitive to this subject I asked them those questions. H2A cost more money. Period. And it’s so hard for you to grasp the reality. True farmers hire some H2A because of illegal shortages if possible they try hard to avoid that because it’s not cost effective. That’s a fact. I never said they never hire H2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you show you don't comprehend anything I stated or showed, your stuck on your stupid talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to minimize the counties I know that I have not seen a white or black landscapers for a long time. Maybe you are not aware that is mostly the Southern Ca. Compared to your very limited area of one city. Very funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern California is not at all like Southern California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, etc. Again you completely missed the point.
Click to expand...


You are funnier than I thought. Insults doesn’t change the reality. You are so stuck and ignorant with your H2A that you think it’s good for the farmers. That you don’t even grasp the reality.
I don’t even believe you that you are a business owner. You don’t even understand what cost effective means let alone a business owner. Maybe you are just a worker of a landscaper. 

That is true I do not comprehend what you are telling me because they do not reflect the reality. And you are just talking nonsense.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect? Yet you post no link for your support as to percentages, just your opinion based non-sense. Legal workers includes, H2A workers, LPR's, and citizens. SMFH
> 
> How about this from PEWAgain, like I previously stated, they are not a majority workforce in any industry in the US.
> 
> Where I live the lawn care guys are all white with the exception of the commercial landscapers that do the city contracts. As for in home health care, I see Asians predominantly, whites and blacks. House cleaning services I see both Hispanic and White, in fact I have a white US Citizen that comes and cleans my house weekly. SHRUG
> 
> Just because you see something in specific areas doesn't mean it is that way everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very funny.
> Again I post based on experience and reality.
> I asked you to provide me the locations you are talking about. Where is that?
> 
> I do not need to show you a link to support what I’m saying. So if I know a large farmer owners In California and Arizona. what made you think the next door farmers are doing any different?
> I already prove to you that H2A is a joke and not cost effective.
> I also used Molly maids to clean both of my houses and they are illegals from Cuba and Mexico.
> 
> Where you live? That’s funny. You are giving me your very limited experience. How many health care owners that you know one? How about If i will tell you about 40 home care owners located here in California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada and Hawaii.
> 
> Funny. I never said illegals are the majority of workforce in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you posted mostly on hearsay from your little circle of people you know. SHRUG
> 
> I know farmers too in California and Texas, in fact I do work for some, their experiences are much different. And as I pointed out roughly 1/4 of farm workers are illegals. There is not a single industry in which illegals make up the majority of workers. You proved the H2A is a Joke? LMFAO Your opinion is not proof of anything. SMFH
> 
> You really need to brush up on your English Comprehension.
> 
> I gave you my opinion and what I see along with numerous links that you don't seem to adept at understanding.  Either back up your inept opinion or come up with something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suddenly you know a farmer. Very funny. I posted over and over on separate and different threads about farmers I know for almost 3 years. If you think I have a limited knowledge of workforce. But for sure I know far more than a landscaper.
> 
> Again I never said illegals are the majority of American workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Suddenly I know a farmer? I deal with many orchards in my business. SHRUG
> Wow you know a farmer or two for 3 years, I'm impressed. SMFH
> 
> You know more than a landscaper? LMFAO Were you born stupid or dropped on your head somewhere along the line?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are putting words in my mouth.  I said for almost 3 years since I’ve been here I posted here over and over about farmer owners. It doesn’t mean I just met them 3 years ago.
> Oh yes I know landscapers business owners and lawn designers. Is that a surprise? As far as labor work force from different categories yes I can assure I know far far more than a lousy landscapers.
> Since you started the attack. You know this is coming.
> 
> Stupid? Really? This is when I know I’m in control and winning because you are running out of worthless intelligent rebuttal. And I know you are going to come down to this.
Click to expand...

I didn't put anything in your mouth. YUK

Yes, STUPID.  Funny how you think all I am is a lousy Landscaper.  You can assure you know far far more about the labor workforce from different categories? LMFAO C'mon know it all, you haven't shown anything yet that is beyond ignorant talking points and in a limited geographical area. SMFH


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t have a grasp of what the reality is.
> Do you expect me to give you a link of how many general contractors, plumbers, farmers, hospitals, bars & restaurants, franchises, titi bars, day care, clubs, landscapers, roofers, janitorial services, temp. agencies, city inspectors, developers, manufacturing business owners I know?  From California, Arizona, Nevada, Portland, Washington, Hawaii, New York to Florida?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I expect you to grasp what has been stated and shown. Illegals are not a majority of workers in any industry, and yes citizens do work in every aspect of every industry.
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you are not dealing with a lightweight. It’s funny that ignorant people like you don’t even know that people like me exist. You know my company if I told you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, I'm not dealing with a lightweight, I'm dealing with a moron that doesn't comprehend basic English. SMFH
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I know what is going on in Houston and Florida. For you to have an information you use a Google. I don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? You have no idea what I have or who I know or where I go to work.
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Farmers I talked on regular basis knows several farmers all over the country and they told them the same thing. Because I’m sensitive to this subject I asked them those questions. H2A cost more money. Period. And it’s so hard for you to grasp the reality. True farmers hire some H2A because of illegal shortages if possible they try hard to avoid that because it’s not cost effective. That’s a fact. I never said they never hire H2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you show you don't comprehend anything I stated or showed, your stuck on your stupid talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to minimize the counties I know that I have not seen a white or black landscapers for a long time. Maybe you are not aware that is mostly the Southern Ca. Compared to your very limited area of one city. Very funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern California is not at all like Southern California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, etc. Again you completely missed the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are funnier than I thought. Insults doesn’t change the reality. You are so stuck and ignorant with your H2A that you think it’s good for the farmers. That you don’t even grasp the reality.
> I don’t even believe you that you are a business owner. You don’t even understand what cost effective means let alone a business owner. Maybe you are just a worker of a landscaper.
> 
> That is true I do not comprehend what you are telling me because they do not reflect the reality. And you are just talking nonsense.
Click to expand...

Again, I never claimed it was good for the farmers, and you wonder why I asked if you were born stupid or dropped on your head somewhere along the line. SMFH

The H2A is a visa only for farmers, I don't care if it is not cost effective, if they have to provide housing, insurance, transportation, etc to them, that is the option they have in order to bring in outside labor if they can't find legal workers here. Period. If they don't want to use it hey can mechanize and forgo labor all together. 

I don't really care what you believe about me, for all I know, you are some drunk Portuguese thinking he knows more than he actually does in cyberspace. SMFH


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. I’m not assuming anything because of their looks. I talked to my friends that are business owners from different categories just about everything. From how much they get paid, who work harder Mexicans or Salvadorians or Guatemalans or where they live etc etc.
> 
> I know several McDonald’s owners and restaurants. Do you mind telling me where that McDonald’s in northern Ca you are telling me? I know some of them in that locations.
> Kids now are so different now compared from a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are, your claims are based on your limited sample, the few people you know. Hell I have kids in high school and out of high school that send me resumes for jobs they want, at least 3 a week. With the equipment I use and my insurance requirements I am limited who I can hire. There are 2 McDonalds along Highway 65 between Rocklin/Roseville and Sheridan, both have high school kids of all colors working in them, so does the Taco Bell, Jack in the Box, Burger King, Subway, Togos, Red Robin, Panda Express, Carls Jr, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah! You are saying kids applying jobs to your landscape. So what happened to the your older employees with experience? I have not seen a black and white landscapers for a very long time let alone kids.
> 
> Sure there are places in America that employ kids. I never said ALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing happened to my older employees, they still work for me. My climber is Black and from Barbados, my groundsman are white. My youngest worker is 23, my oldest is 53. You inferred kids weren't working in these places, at least now you are admitting they do work in fast food and various other industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said the entire nation. Again kids are not the same like it used to be. You are giving me an example based from your very limited experience in your area in one city.. As I said repeatedly I know McDonald’s franchises owners. It’s very hard to find a reliable kids now a days. They have different kinds of mentality. You go to different city where majority are blacks but workers are Hispanics. You go to car washes about 99% Hispanics. etc etc etc.
> 
> There are several documentaries broadcasted all over why and where there are no white and black Americans workers in a certain areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right you never said the entire nation, you limited yourself to the LA area after it was pointed out  that it is not indicative of the rest of the US, which you then claimed you knew people all over the US and you can get info from them on all things.  And then you make the stupid claim once again. What you may have in LA is not indicative of the rest of the US. SMFH
> 
> Several documentaries saying no whites or blacks working in certain areas? LMFAO Try watching those documentaries again and listen to them very carefully, you may realize your claim here is that of your miss understanding of Basic English Comprehension.
Click to expand...


Are you really this dumb and ignorant I use LA as an example.

Documentaries was not designed to put down anybody. And I believed those documentaries because it reflect the reality 100% and what I learned from the real business owners. Not from a lousy ignorant like you. You don’t know shit. 

This is so funny adding insult to your rebuttal. I know I’m winning.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are, your claims are based on your limited sample, the few people you know. Hell I have kids in high school and out of high school that send me resumes for jobs they want, at least 3 a week. With the equipment I use and my insurance requirements I am limited who I can hire. There are 2 McDonalds along Highway 65 between Rocklin/Roseville and Sheridan, both have high school kids of all colors working in them, so does the Taco Bell, Jack in the Box, Burger King, Subway, Togos, Red Robin, Panda Express, Carls Jr, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah! You are saying kids applying jobs to your landscape. So what happened to the your older employees with experience? I have not seen a black and white landscapers for a very long time let alone kids.
> 
> Sure there are places in America that employ kids. I never said ALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing happened to my older employees, they still work for me. My climber is Black and from Barbados, my groundsman are white. My youngest worker is 23, my oldest is 53. You inferred kids weren't working in these places, at least now you are admitting they do work in fast food and various other industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said the entire nation. Again kids are not the same like it used to be. You are giving me an example based from your very limited experience in your area in one city.. As I said repeatedly I know McDonald’s franchises owners. It’s very hard to find a reliable kids now a days. They have different kinds of mentality. You go to different city where majority are blacks but workers are Hispanics. You go to car washes about 99% Hispanics. etc etc etc.
> 
> There are several documentaries broadcasted all over why and where there are no white and black Americans workers in a certain areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right you never said the entire nation, you limited yourself to the LA area after it was pointed out  that it is not indicative of the rest of the US, which you then claimed you knew people all over the US and you can get info from them on all things.  And then you make the stupid claim once again. What you may have in LA is not indicative of the rest of the US. SMFH
> 
> Several documentaries saying no whites or blacks working in certain areas? LMFAO Try watching those documentaries again and listen to them very carefully, you may realize your claim here is that of your miss understanding of Basic English Comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really this dumb and ignorant I use LA as an example.
> 
> Documentaries was not designed to put down anybody. And I believed those documentaries because it reflect the reality 100% and what I learned from the real business owners. Not from a lousy ignorant like you. You don’t know shit.
> 
> This is so funny adding insult to your rebuttal. I know I’m winning.
Click to expand...

LA is a geographic area on a map not indicative of the rest of the nation. I didn't say documentaries put anybody down. SMFH Documentaries do not reflect reality 100%. SMFH They are indicative of something specific in a geographic area. 

If your business owner friends are knowingly hiring illegals and you know about it, you should be jailed and so should they. The rest of your diatribe is hearsay, opinion, and hyperbole.  YAWN


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t have a grasp of what the reality is.
> Do you expect me to give you a link of how many general contractors, plumbers, farmers, hospitals, bars & restaurants, franchises, titi bars, day care, clubs, landscapers, roofers, janitorial services, temp. agencies, city inspectors, developers, manufacturing business owners I know?  From California, Arizona, Nevada, Portland, Washington, Hawaii, New York to Florida?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I expect you to grasp what has been stated and shown. Illegals are not a majority of workers in any industry, and yes citizens do work in every aspect of every industry.
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you are not dealing with a lightweight. It’s funny that ignorant people like you don’t even know that people like me exist. You know my company if I told you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, I'm not dealing with a lightweight, I'm dealing with a moron that doesn't comprehend basic English. SMFH
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I know what is going on in Houston and Florida. For you to have an information you use a Google. I don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? You have no idea what I have or who I know or where I go to work.
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Farmers I talked on regular basis knows several farmers all over the country and they told them the same thing. Because I’m sensitive to this subject I asked them those questions. H2A cost more money. Period. And it’s so hard for you to grasp the reality. True farmers hire some H2A because of illegal shortages if possible they try hard to avoid that because it’s not cost effective. That’s a fact. I never said they never hire H2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you show you don't comprehend anything I stated or showed, your stuck on your stupid talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to minimize the counties I know that I have not seen a white or black landscapers for a long time. Maybe you are not aware that is mostly the Southern Ca. Compared to your very limited area of one city. Very funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern California is not at all like Southern California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, etc. Again you completely missed the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are funnier than I thought. Insults doesn’t change the reality. You are so stuck and ignorant with your H2A that you think it’s good for the farmers. That you don’t even grasp the reality.
> I don’t even believe you that you are a business owner. You don’t even understand what cost effective means let alone a business owner. Maybe you are just a worker of a landscaper.
> 
> That is true I do not comprehend what you are telling me because they do not reflect the reality. And you are just talking nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I never claimed it was good for the farmers, and you wonder why I asked if you were born stupid or dropped on your head somewhere along the line. SMFH
> 
> The H2A is a visa only for farmers, I don't care if it is not cost effective, if they have to provide housing, insurance, transportation, etc to them, that is the option they have in order to bring in outside labor if they can't find legal workers here. Period. If they don't want to use it hey can mechanize and forgo labor all together.
> 
> I don't really care what you believe about me, for all I know, you are some drunk Portuguese thinking he knows more than he actually does in cyberspace. SMFH
Click to expand...



I repeated over and over that H2A is not good and not cost effective. You have to care either you like it or not because if you are a business owner and you know if it’s not cost effective..... it’s bad for the business. If you are a business owner you should know better. 

And I’m not drunk. I’m telling you the reality. Not from ignorance.
And I can guarantee you that I know far far more than a landscaper.


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah! You are saying kids applying jobs to your landscape. So what happened to the your older employees with experience? I have not seen a black and white landscapers for a very long time let alone kids.
> 
> Sure there are places in America that employ kids. I never said ALL.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing happened to my older employees, they still work for me. My climber is Black and from Barbados, my groundsman are white. My youngest worker is 23, my oldest is 53. You inferred kids weren't working in these places, at least now you are admitting they do work in fast food and various other industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said the entire nation. Again kids are not the same like it used to be. You are giving me an example based from your very limited experience in your area in one city.. As I said repeatedly I know McDonald’s franchises owners. It’s very hard to find a reliable kids now a days. They have different kinds of mentality. You go to different city where majority are blacks but workers are Hispanics. You go to car washes about 99% Hispanics. etc etc etc.
> 
> There are several documentaries broadcasted all over why and where there are no white and black Americans workers in a certain areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right you never said the entire nation, you limited yourself to the LA area after it was pointed out  that it is not indicative of the rest of the US, which you then claimed you knew people all over the US and you can get info from them on all things.  And then you make the stupid claim once again. What you may have in LA is not indicative of the rest of the US. SMFH
> 
> Several documentaries saying no whites or blacks working in certain areas? LMFAO Try watching those documentaries again and listen to them very carefully, you may realize your claim here is that of your miss understanding of Basic English Comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really this dumb and ignorant I use LA as an example.
> 
> Documentaries was not designed to put down anybody. And I believed those documentaries because it reflect the reality 100% and what I learned from the real business owners. Not from a lousy ignorant like you. You don’t know shit.
> 
> This is so funny adding insult to your rebuttal. I know I’m winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. LA is a geographic area on a map not indicative of the rest of the nation. I didn't say documentaries put anybody down. SMFH Documentaries do not reflect reality 100%. SMFH They are indicative of something specific in a geographic area.
> 
> 2. If your business owner friends are knowingly hiring illegals and you know about it, you should be jailed and so should they. The rest of your diatribe is hearsay, opinion, and hyperbole.  YAWN
Click to expand...


1. Again I only use LA as an example. 
2. Raid the farming and  slaughterhouses. No ones stopping you.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t have a grasp of what the reality is.
> Do you expect me to give you a link of how many general contractors, plumbers, farmers, hospitals, bars & restaurants, franchises, titi bars, day care, clubs, landscapers, roofers, janitorial services, temp. agencies, city inspectors, developers, manufacturing business owners I know?  From California, Arizona, Nevada, Portland, Washington, Hawaii, New York to Florida?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I expect you to grasp what has been stated and shown. Illegals are not a majority of workers in any industry, and yes citizens do work in every aspect of every industry.
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you are not dealing with a lightweight. It’s funny that ignorant people like you don’t even know that people like me exist. You know my company if I told you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, I'm not dealing with a lightweight, I'm dealing with a moron that doesn't comprehend basic English. SMFH
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I know what is going on in Houston and Florida. For you to have an information you use a Google. I don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? You have no idea what I have or who I know or where I go to work.
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Farmers I talked on regular basis knows several farmers all over the country and they told them the same thing. Because I’m sensitive to this subject I asked them those questions. H2A cost more money. Period. And it’s so hard for you to grasp the reality. True farmers hire some H2A because of illegal shortages if possible they try hard to avoid that because it’s not cost effective. That’s a fact. I never said they never hire H2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you show you don't comprehend anything I stated or showed, your stuck on your stupid talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to minimize the counties I know that I have not seen a white or black landscapers for a long time. Maybe you are not aware that is mostly the Southern Ca. Compared to your very limited area of one city. Very funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern California is not at all like Southern California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, etc. Again you completely missed the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are funnier than I thought. Insults doesn’t change the reality. You are so stuck and ignorant with your H2A that you think it’s good for the farmers. That you don’t even grasp the reality.
> I don’t even believe you that you are a business owner. You don’t even understand what cost effective means let alone a business owner. Maybe you are just a worker of a landscaper.
> 
> That is true I do not comprehend what you are telling me because they do not reflect the reality. And you are just talking nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I never claimed it was good for the farmers, and you wonder why I asked if you were born stupid or dropped on your head somewhere along the line. SMFH
> 
> The H2A is a visa only for farmers, I don't care if it is not cost effective, if they have to provide housing, insurance, transportation, etc to them, that is the option they have in order to bring in outside labor if they can't find legal workers here. Period. If they don't want to use it hey can mechanize and forgo labor all together.
> 
> I don't really care what you believe about me, for all I know, you are some drunk Portuguese thinking he knows more than he actually does in cyberspace. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I repeated over and over that H2A is not good and not cost effective. You have to care either you like it or not because if you are a business owner and you know if it’s not cost effective..... it’s bad for the business. If you are a business owner you should know better.
> 
> And I’m not drunk. I’m telling you the reality. Not from ignorance.
Click to expand...

JFC go take an English Comp course at your local college.  I don't care if the H2A is good for the farmer or not, it is what he has at his disposal if he can't find legal workers here. If I hire an illegal and get caught, would it be cost effective for me? I have to pay fines, it goes against my license, etc. OR should I raise my hourly wages to hopefully entice workers to come? OR do I say fuckit and mechanize, which will be an expense up front, but down the road it will save me on many expenses I no longer have to deal with, i.e. wages, payroll taxes, lower insurance costs, etc. 

I would mechanize. SHRUG


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing happened to my older employees, they still work for me. My climber is Black and from Barbados, my groundsman are white. My youngest worker is 23, my oldest is 53. You inferred kids weren't working in these places, at least now you are admitting they do work in fast food and various other industries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the entire nation. Again kids are not the same like it used to be. You are giving me an example based from your very limited experience in your area in one city.. As I said repeatedly I know McDonald’s franchises owners. It’s very hard to find a reliable kids now a days. They have different kinds of mentality. You go to different city where majority are blacks but workers are Hispanics. You go to car washes about 99% Hispanics. etc etc etc.
> 
> There are several documentaries broadcasted all over why and where there are no white and black Americans workers in a certain areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right you never said the entire nation, you limited yourself to the LA area after it was pointed out  that it is not indicative of the rest of the US, which you then claimed you knew people all over the US and you can get info from them on all things.  And then you make the stupid claim once again. What you may have in LA is not indicative of the rest of the US. SMFH
> 
> Several documentaries saying no whites or blacks working in certain areas? LMFAO Try watching those documentaries again and listen to them very carefully, you may realize your claim here is that of your miss understanding of Basic English Comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really this dumb and ignorant I use LA as an example.
> 
> Documentaries was not designed to put down anybody. And I believed those documentaries because it reflect the reality 100% and what I learned from the real business owners. Not from a lousy ignorant like you. You don’t know shit.
> 
> This is so funny adding insult to your rebuttal. I know I’m winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. LA is a geographic area on a map not indicative of the rest of the nation. I didn't say documentaries put anybody down. SMFH Documentaries do not reflect reality 100%. SMFH They are indicative of something specific in a geographic area.
> 
> 2. If your business owner friends are knowingly hiring illegals and you know about it, you should be jailed and so should they. The rest of your diatribe is hearsay, opinion, and hyperbole.  YAWN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Again I only use LA as an example.
> 2. Raid the farming and  slaughterhouses. No ones stopping you.
Click to expand...

Bush did raid the slaughterhouses, many legal workers showed up for those jobs and waited in line to apply. 

Many farmers are using employment agencies to get their workers now. SHRUG


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t have a grasp of what the reality is.
> Do you expect me to give you a link of how many general contractors, plumbers, farmers, hospitals, bars & restaurants, franchises, titi bars, day care, clubs, landscapers, roofers, janitorial services, temp. agencies, city inspectors, developers, manufacturing business owners I know?  From California, Arizona, Nevada, Portland, Washington, Hawaii, New York to Florida?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I expect you to grasp what has been stated and shown. Illegals are not a majority of workers in any industry, and yes citizens do work in every aspect of every industry.
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you are not dealing with a lightweight. It’s funny that ignorant people like you don’t even know that people like me exist. You know my company if I told you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, I'm not dealing with a lightweight, I'm dealing with a moron that doesn't comprehend basic English. SMFH
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I know what is going on in Houston and Florida. For you to have an information you use a Google. I don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? You have no idea what I have or who I know or where I go to work.
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Farmers I talked on regular basis knows several farmers all over the country and they told them the same thing. Because I’m sensitive to this subject I asked them those questions. H2A cost more money. Period. And it’s so hard for you to grasp the reality. True farmers hire some H2A because of illegal shortages if possible they try hard to avoid that because it’s not cost effective. That’s a fact. I never said they never hire H2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you show you don't comprehend anything I stated or showed, your stuck on your stupid talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to minimize the counties I know that I have not seen a white or black landscapers for a long time. Maybe you are not aware that is mostly the Southern Ca. Compared to your very limited area of one city. Very funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern California is not at all like Southern California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, etc. Again you completely missed the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are funnier than I thought. Insults doesn’t change the reality. You are so stuck and ignorant with your H2A that you think it’s good for the farmers. That you don’t even grasp the reality.
> I don’t even believe you that you are a business owner. You don’t even understand what cost effective means let alone a business owner. Maybe you are just a worker of a landscaper.
> 
> That is true I do not comprehend what you are telling me because they do not reflect the reality. And you are just talking nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I never claimed it was good for the farmers, and you wonder why I asked if you were born stupid or dropped on your head somewhere along the line. SMFH
> 
> The H2A is a visa only for farmers, I don't care if it is not cost effective, if they have to provide housing, insurance, transportation, etc to them, that is the option they have in order to bring in outside labor if they can't find legal workers here. Period. If they don't want to use it hey can mechanize and forgo labor all together.
> 
> I don't really care what you believe about me, for all I know, you are some drunk Portuguese thinking he knows more than he actually does in cyberspace. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I repeated over and over that H2A is not good and not cost effective. You have to care either you like it or not because if you are a business owner and you know if it’s not cost effective..... it’s bad for the business. If you are a business owner you should know better.
> 
> And I’m not drunk. I’m telling you the reality. Not from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. JFC go take an English Comp course at your local college.  I don't care if the H2A is good for the farmer or not, it is what he has at his disposal if he can't find legal workers here.
> 
> 2. If I hire an illegal and get caught, would it be cost effective for me? I have to pay fines, it goes against my license, etc. OR should I raise my hourly wages to hopefully entice workers to come? OR do I say fuckit and mechanize, which will be an expense up front, but down the road it will save me on many expenses I no longer have to deal with, i.e. wages, payroll taxes, lower insurance costs, etc.
> 
> I would mechanize. SHRUG
Click to expand...


1. You are dumber than I thought. AGAIN. 
If you are a business owner you have to operate the best cost effective. For the farmers H2A is not cost effective. You are not a farmer and you don’t even know one. So I do not expect you to even understand. 

2. Now you are trying to act like you are a business owner.


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the entire nation. Again kids are not the same like it used to be. You are giving me an example based from your very limited experience in your area in one city.. As I said repeatedly I know McDonald’s franchises owners. It’s very hard to find a reliable kids now a days. They have different kinds of mentality. You go to different city where majority are blacks but workers are Hispanics. You go to car washes about 99% Hispanics. etc etc etc.
> 
> There are several documentaries broadcasted all over why and where there are no white and black Americans workers in a certain areas.
> 
> 
> 
> That's right you never said the entire nation, you limited yourself to the LA area after it was pointed out  that it is not indicative of the rest of the US, which you then claimed you knew people all over the US and you can get info from them on all things.  And then you make the stupid claim once again. What you may have in LA is not indicative of the rest of the US. SMFH
> 
> Several documentaries saying no whites or blacks working in certain areas? LMFAO Try watching those documentaries again and listen to them very carefully, you may realize your claim here is that of your miss understanding of Basic English Comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really this dumb and ignorant I use LA as an example.
> 
> Documentaries was not designed to put down anybody. And I believed those documentaries because it reflect the reality 100% and what I learned from the real business owners. Not from a lousy ignorant like you. You don’t know shit.
> 
> This is so funny adding insult to your rebuttal. I know I’m winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. LA is a geographic area on a map not indicative of the rest of the nation. I didn't say documentaries put anybody down. SMFH Documentaries do not reflect reality 100%. SMFH They are indicative of something specific in a geographic area.
> 
> 2. If your business owner friends are knowingly hiring illegals and you know about it, you should be jailed and so should they. The rest of your diatribe is hearsay, opinion, and hyperbole.  YAWN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Again I only use LA as an example.
> 2. Raid the farming and  slaughterhouses. No ones stopping you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush did raid the slaughterhouses, many legal workers showed up for those jobs and waited in line to apply.
> 
> Many farmers are using employment agencies to get their workers now. SHRUG
Click to expand...


Nah!  Did they came back and raided it again?  

Again farmers I know and they know do NOT hire from agencies unless they have to because of shortages.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I expect you to grasp what has been stated and shown. Illegals are not a majority of workers in any industry, and yes citizens do work in every aspect of every industry.
> 
> You're right, I'm not dealing with a lightweight, I'm dealing with a moron that doesn't comprehend basic English. SMFH
> 
> Really? You have no idea what I have or who I know or where I go to work.
> 
> Again you show you don't comprehend anything I stated or showed, your stuck on your stupid talking points.
> 
> Northern California is not at all like Southern California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, etc. Again you completely missed the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are funnier than I thought. Insults doesn’t change the reality. You are so stuck and ignorant with your H2A that you think it’s good for the farmers. That you don’t even grasp the reality.
> I don’t even believe you that you are a business owner. You don’t even understand what cost effective means let alone a business owner. Maybe you are just a worker of a landscaper.
> 
> That is true I do not comprehend what you are telling me because they do not reflect the reality. And you are just talking nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I never claimed it was good for the farmers, and you wonder why I asked if you were born stupid or dropped on your head somewhere along the line. SMFH
> 
> The H2A is a visa only for farmers, I don't care if it is not cost effective, if they have to provide housing, insurance, transportation, etc to them, that is the option they have in order to bring in outside labor if they can't find legal workers here. Period. If they don't want to use it hey can mechanize and forgo labor all together.
> 
> I don't really care what you believe about me, for all I know, you are some drunk Portuguese thinking he knows more than he actually does in cyberspace. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I repeated over and over that H2A is not good and not cost effective. You have to care either you like it or not because if you are a business owner and you know if it’s not cost effective..... it’s bad for the business. If you are a business owner you should know better.
> 
> And I’m not drunk. I’m telling you the reality. Not from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. JFC go take an English Comp course at your local college.  I don't care if the H2A is good for the farmer or not, it is what he has at his disposal if he can't find legal workers here.
> 
> 2. If I hire an illegal and get caught, would it be cost effective for me? I have to pay fines, it goes against my license, etc. OR should I raise my hourly wages to hopefully entice workers to come? OR do I say fuckit and mechanize, which will be an expense up front, but down the road it will save me on many expenses I no longer have to deal with, i.e. wages, payroll taxes, lower insurance costs, etc.
> 
> I would mechanize. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You are dumber than I thought. AGAIN.
> If you are a business owner you have to operate the best cost effective. For the farmers H2A is not cost effective. You are not a farmer and you don’t even know one. So I do not expect you to even understand.
> 
> 2. Now you are trying to act like you are a business owner.
Click to expand...

I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF THE H2A IS COST EFFECTIVE OR NOT!!!!!!!!!

It is what they have at their disposal to hire legal workers. SMFH


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right you never said the entire nation, you limited yourself to the LA area after it was pointed out  that it is not indicative of the rest of the US, which you then claimed you knew people all over the US and you can get info from them on all things.  And then you make the stupid claim once again. What you may have in LA is not indicative of the rest of the US. SMFH
> 
> Several documentaries saying no whites or blacks working in certain areas? LMFAO Try watching those documentaries again and listen to them very carefully, you may realize your claim here is that of your miss understanding of Basic English Comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really this dumb and ignorant I use LA as an example.
> 
> Documentaries was not designed to put down anybody. And I believed those documentaries because it reflect the reality 100% and what I learned from the real business owners. Not from a lousy ignorant like you. You don’t know shit.
> 
> This is so funny adding insult to your rebuttal. I know I’m winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. LA is a geographic area on a map not indicative of the rest of the nation. I didn't say documentaries put anybody down. SMFH Documentaries do not reflect reality 100%. SMFH They are indicative of something specific in a geographic area.
> 
> 2. If your business owner friends are knowingly hiring illegals and you know about it, you should be jailed and so should they. The rest of your diatribe is hearsay, opinion, and hyperbole.  YAWN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Again I only use LA as an example.
> 2. Raid the farming and  slaughterhouses. No ones stopping you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush did raid the slaughterhouses, many legal workers showed up for those jobs and waited in line to apply.
> 
> Many farmers are using employment agencies to get their workers now. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah!  Did they came back and raided it again?
> 
> Again farmers I know and they know do NOT hire from agencies unless they have to because of shortages.
Click to expand...

SMFH until you are able to read and speak normal English don't bother making another incredibly ignorant comment. Outside your little group of butt buddies is a whole other world, one in which many farmers are using agencies to bring in H2A and legal workers. I suggest you get caught up on the times and get your head out of your ass. watafuknidiot

Please for fuck sake, read the links and then have someone explain them to you.
USA Farm Labor Jobs H2A Workers | USAFARMLABOR LLC

H2A & H2B Guest Worker Services | FEWA

Agri-Placements > Home

Home


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really this dumb and ignorant I use LA as an example.
> 
> Documentaries was not designed to put down anybody. And I believed those documentaries because it reflect the reality 100% and what I learned from the real business owners. Not from a lousy ignorant like you. You don’t know shit.
> 
> This is so funny adding insult to your rebuttal. I know I’m winning.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. LA is a geographic area on a map not indicative of the rest of the nation. I didn't say documentaries put anybody down. SMFH Documentaries do not reflect reality 100%. SMFH They are indicative of something specific in a geographic area.
> 
> 2. If your business owner friends are knowingly hiring illegals and you know about it, you should be jailed and so should they. The rest of your diatribe is hearsay, opinion, and hyperbole.  YAWN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Again I only use LA as an example.
> 2. Raid the farming and  slaughterhouses. No ones stopping you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush did raid the slaughterhouses, many legal workers showed up for those jobs and waited in line to apply.
> 
> Many farmers are using employment agencies to get their workers now. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah!  Did they came back and raided it again?
> 
> Again farmers I know and they know do NOT hire from agencies unless they have to because of shortages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SMFH until you are able to read and speak normal English don't bother making another incredibly ignorant comment. Outside your little group of butt buddies is a whole other world, one in which many farmers are using agencies to bring in H2A and legal workers. I suggest you get caught up on the times and get your head out of your ass. watafuknidiot
> 
> Please for fuck sake, read the links and then have someone explain them to you.
> USA Farm Labor Jobs H2A Workers | USAFARMLABOR LLC
> 
> H2A & H2B Guest Worker Services | FEWA
> 
> Agri-Placements > Home
> 
> Home
Click to expand...


Making an insult is that supposed to scare me?
Making an insult. Is that mean your post are even credible? 
I know I’m winning because you run out of ammunition. 
I know you are ignorant and don’t know shit. 

Grow the fuck up idiot. I don’t even bother reading your worthless post.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. LA is a geographic area on a map not indicative of the rest of the nation. I didn't say documentaries put anybody down. SMFH Documentaries do not reflect reality 100%. SMFH They are indicative of something specific in a geographic area.
> 
> 2. If your business owner friends are knowingly hiring illegals and you know about it, you should be jailed and so should they. The rest of your diatribe is hearsay, opinion, and hyperbole.  YAWN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Again I only use LA as an example.
> 2. Raid the farming and  slaughterhouses. No ones stopping you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush did raid the slaughterhouses, many legal workers showed up for those jobs and waited in line to apply.
> 
> Many farmers are using employment agencies to get their workers now. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah!  Did they came back and raided it again?
> 
> Again farmers I know and they know do NOT hire from agencies unless they have to because of shortages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SMFH until you are able to read and speak normal English don't bother making another incredibly ignorant comment. Outside your little group of butt buddies is a whole other world, one in which many farmers are using agencies to bring in H2A and legal workers. I suggest you get caught up on the times and get your head out of your ass. watafuknidiot
> 
> Please for fuck sake, read the links and then have someone explain them to you.
> USA Farm Labor Jobs H2A Workers | USAFARMLABOR LLC
> 
> H2A & H2B Guest Worker Services | FEWA
> 
> Agri-Placements > Home
> 
> Home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Making an insult is that supposed to scare me?
> Making an insult. Is that mean your post are even credible?
> I know I’m winning because you run out of ammunition.
> 
> Grow the fuck up idiot. I don’t even bother reading your worthless post.
Click to expand...

Pointing out facts is now insults? What are you "winning"? SMFH You sound like Charlie Sheen, maybe you know him too and you both stick your heads up each others asses to here each others thoughts, "WINNING" !! 

watafuknidiot


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are funnier than I thought. Insults doesn’t change the reality. You are so stuck and ignorant with your H2A that you think it’s good for the farmers. That you don’t even grasp the reality.
> I don’t even believe you that you are a business owner. You don’t even understand what cost effective means let alone a business owner. Maybe you are just a worker of a landscaper.
> 
> That is true I do not comprehend what you are telling me because they do not reflect the reality. And you are just talking nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I never claimed it was good for the farmers, and you wonder why I asked if you were born stupid or dropped on your head somewhere along the line. SMFH
> 
> The H2A is a visa only for farmers, I don't care if it is not cost effective, if they have to provide housing, insurance, transportation, etc to them, that is the option they have in order to bring in outside labor if they can't find legal workers here. Period. If they don't want to use it hey can mechanize and forgo labor all together.
> 
> I don't really care what you believe about me, for all I know, you are some drunk Portuguese thinking he knows more than he actually does in cyberspace. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I repeated over and over that H2A is not good and not cost effective. You have to care either you like it or not because if you are a business owner and you know if it’s not cost effective..... it’s bad for the business. If you are a business owner you should know better.
> 
> And I’m not drunk. I’m telling you the reality. Not from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. JFC go take an English Comp course at your local college.  I don't care if the H2A is good for the farmer or not, it is what he has at his disposal if he can't find legal workers here.
> 
> 2. If I hire an illegal and get caught, would it be cost effective for me? I have to pay fines, it goes against my license, etc. OR should I raise my hourly wages to hopefully entice workers to come? OR do I say fuckit and mechanize, which will be an expense up front, but down the road it will save me on many expenses I no longer have to deal with, i.e. wages, payroll taxes, lower insurance costs, etc.
> 
> I would mechanize. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You are dumber than I thought. AGAIN.
> If you are a business owner you have to operate the best cost effective. For the farmers H2A is not cost effective. You are not a farmer and you don’t even know one. So I do not expect you to even understand.
> 
> 2. Now you are trying to act like you are a business owner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF THE H2A IS COST EFFECTIVE OR NOT!!!!!!!!!
> 
> It is what they have at their disposal to hire legal workers. SMFH
Click to expand...


You don’t care because you don’t shit. Dude. And I know you are not a business owner. You are so funny.


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really this dumb and ignorant I use LA as an example.
> 
> Documentaries was not designed to put down anybody. And I believed those documentaries because it reflect the reality 100% and what I learned from the real business owners. Not from a lousy ignorant like you. You don’t know shit.
> 
> This is so funny adding insult to your rebuttal. I know I’m winning.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. LA is a geographic area on a map not indicative of the rest of the nation. I didn't say documentaries put anybody down. SMFH Documentaries do not reflect reality 100%. SMFH They are indicative of something specific in a geographic area.
> 
> 2. If your business owner friends are knowingly hiring illegals and you know about it, you should be jailed and so should they. The rest of your diatribe is hearsay, opinion, and hyperbole.  YAWN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Again I only use LA as an example.
> 2. Raid the farming and  slaughterhouses. No ones stopping you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush did raid the slaughterhouses, many legal workers showed up for those jobs and waited in line to apply.
> 
> Many farmers are using employment agencies to get their workers now. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah!  Did they came back and raided it again?
> 
> Again farmers I know and they know do NOT hire from agencies unless they have to because of shortages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SMFH until you are able to read and speak normal English don't bother making another incredibly ignorant comment. Outside your little group of butt buddies is a whole other world, one in which many farmers are using agencies to bring in H2A and legal workers. I suggest you get caught up on the times and get your head out of your ass. watafuknidiot
> 
> Please for fuck sake, read the links and then have someone explain them to you.
> USA Farm Labor Jobs H2A Workers | USAFARMLABOR LLC
> 
> H2A & H2B Guest Worker Services | FEWA
> 
> Agri-Placements > Home
> 
> Home
Click to expand...


I understand truth hurts. Grow up poor old man.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. LA is a geographic area on a map not indicative of the rest of the nation. I didn't say documentaries put anybody down. SMFH Documentaries do not reflect reality 100%. SMFH They are indicative of something specific in a geographic area.
> 
> 2. If your business owner friends are knowingly hiring illegals and you know about it, you should be jailed and so should they. The rest of your diatribe is hearsay, opinion, and hyperbole.  YAWN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Again I only use LA as an example.
> 2. Raid the farming and  slaughterhouses. No ones stopping you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush did raid the slaughterhouses, many legal workers showed up for those jobs and waited in line to apply.
> 
> Many farmers are using employment agencies to get their workers now. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah!  Did they came back and raided it again?
> 
> Again farmers I know and they know do NOT hire from agencies unless they have to because of shortages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SMFH until you are able to read and speak normal English don't bother making another incredibly ignorant comment. Outside your little group of butt buddies is a whole other world, one in which many farmers are using agencies to bring in H2A and legal workers. I suggest you get caught up on the times and get your head out of your ass. watafuknidiot
> 
> Please for fuck sake, read the links and then have someone explain them to you.
> USA Farm Labor Jobs H2A Workers | USAFARMLABOR LLC
> 
> H2A & H2B Guest Worker Services | FEWA
> 
> Agri-Placements > Home
> 
> Home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand truth hurts. Grow up poor old man.
Click to expand...

YAWN


----------



## ChrisL

No matter, a good 80% of US voters are opposed to sanctuary cities.


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Again I only use LA as an example.
> 2. Raid the farming and  slaughterhouses. No ones stopping you.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush did raid the slaughterhouses, many legal workers showed up for those jobs and waited in line to apply.
> 
> Many farmers are using employment agencies to get their workers now. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah!  Did they came back and raided it again?
> 
> Again farmers I know and they know do NOT hire from agencies unless they have to because of shortages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SMFH until you are able to read and speak normal English don't bother making another incredibly ignorant comment. Outside your little group of butt buddies is a whole other world, one in which many farmers are using agencies to bring in H2A and legal workers. I suggest you get caught up on the times and get your head out of your ass. watafuknidiot
> 
> Please for fuck sake, read the links and then have someone explain them to you.
> USA Farm Labor Jobs H2A Workers | USAFARMLABOR LLC
> 
> H2A & H2B Guest Worker Services | FEWA
> 
> Agri-Placements > Home
> 
> Home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand truth hurts. Grow up poor old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YAWN
Click to expand...


Next time you do this again. I will kick your ass again. You got that? 
Remember you attack first. I was hoping we have a nice conversations but NOOOOO  you run out of intelligent rebuttal you start the attack. 
You should know better.


----------



## JoeMoma

theDoctorisIn said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating a number of separate issues.
> 
> Sanctuary city policies do not "establish a permanent residence", or allow immigrants to become legally employed.
Click to expand...

Good points.  Perhaps I should have said become employed and establish a residence.  And it doesn’t matter whether the employment is legal or not because there will be no consequences.  In sanctuary cities the immigrants are called undocumented because the legalities don’t matter.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

charwin95 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush did raid the slaughterhouses, many legal workers showed up for those jobs and waited in line to apply.
> 
> Many farmers are using employment agencies to get their workers now. SHRUG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah!  Did they came back and raided it again?
> 
> Again farmers I know and they know do NOT hire from agencies unless they have to because of shortages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SMFH until you are able to read and speak normal English don't bother making another incredibly ignorant comment. Outside your little group of butt buddies is a whole other world, one in which many farmers are using agencies to bring in H2A and legal workers. I suggest you get caught up on the times and get your head out of your ass. watafuknidiot
> 
> Please for fuck sake, read the links and then have someone explain them to you.
> USA Farm Labor Jobs H2A Workers | USAFARMLABOR LLC
> 
> H2A & H2B Guest Worker Services | FEWA
> 
> Agri-Placements > Home
> 
> Home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand truth hurts. Grow up poor old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YAWN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Next time you do this again. I will kick your ass again. You got that?
> Remember you attack first. I was hoping we have a nice conversations but NOOOOO  you run out of intelligent rebuttal you start the attack.
> You should know better.
Click to expand...

You couldn't figure out how to get out of a wet paper bag. SMFH  

YAWN


----------



## Slyhunter

if the employer can't afford an American living wage then he shouldn't do business in America.


----------



## danielpalos

JoeMoma said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating a number of separate issues.
> 
> Sanctuary city policies do not "establish a permanent residence", or allow immigrants to become legally employed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good points.  Perhaps I should have said become employed and establish a residence.  And it doesn’t matter whether the employment is legal or not because there will be no consequences.  In sanctuary cities the immigrants are called undocumented because the legalities don’t matter.
Click to expand...

the right wing doesn't care about the law; they just like to punish less fortunate illegals.


----------



## ChrisL

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really this dumb and ignorant I use LA as an example.
> 
> Documentaries was not designed to put down anybody. And I believed those documentaries because it reflect the reality 100% and what I learned from the real business owners. Not from a lousy ignorant like you. You don’t know shit.
> 
> This is so funny adding insult to your rebuttal. I know I’m winning.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. LA is a geographic area on a map not indicative of the rest of the nation. I didn't say documentaries put anybody down. SMFH Documentaries do not reflect reality 100%. SMFH They are indicative of something specific in a geographic area.
> 
> 2. If your business owner friends are knowingly hiring illegals and you know about it, you should be jailed and so should they. The rest of your diatribe is hearsay, opinion, and hyperbole.  YAWN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Again I only use LA as an example.
> 2. Raid the farming and  slaughterhouses. No ones stopping you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush did raid the slaughterhouses, many legal workers showed up for those jobs and waited in line to apply.
> 
> Many farmers are using employment agencies to get their workers now. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah!  Did they came back and raided it again?
> 
> Again farmers I know and they know do NOT hire from agencies unless they have to because of shortages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SMFH until you are able to read and speak normal English don't bother making another incredibly ignorant comment. Outside your little group of butt buddies is a whole other world, one in which many farmers are using agencies to bring in H2A and legal workers. I suggest you get caught up on the times and get your head out of your ass. watafuknidiot
> 
> Please for fuck sake, read the links and then have someone explain them to you.
> USA Farm Labor Jobs H2A Workers | USAFARMLABOR LLC
> 
> H2A & H2B Guest Worker Services | FEWA
> 
> Agri-Placements > Home
> 
> Home
Click to expand...


Thank you for providing us with facts and knowledge.  Good job.  Great posts.


----------



## task0778

Slyhunter said:


> if the employer can't afford an American living wage then he shouldn't do business in America.



If an employee isn't worth a living wage then he/she shouldn't be paid a living wage in America.


----------



## danielpalos

task0778 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the employer can't afford an American living wage then he shouldn't do business in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If an employee isn't worth a living wage then he/she shouldn't be paid a living wage in America.
Click to expand...

they can stay poor on unemployment until they, "learn their capital lesson"?


----------



## Humorme

Slyhunter said:


> if the employer can't afford an American living wage then he shouldn't do business in America.



Even if someone agreed with you, that is a state issue.  States and counties can deny permission to do business if the owners of said business cannot afford to pay their employees a wage consistent with the area's geographical needs.


----------



## Slyhunter

task0778 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the employer can't afford an American living wage then he shouldn't do business in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If an employee isn't worth a living wage then he/she shouldn't be paid a living wage in America.
Click to expand...

He should just die and get out of the way?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Slyhunter said:


> if the employer can't afford an American living wage then he shouldn't do business in America.




What the hell is a living wage?


----------



## Slyhunter

bear513 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the employer can't afford an American living wage then he shouldn't do business in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell is a living wage?
Click to expand...

Why the fuck do I have to keep repeating myself.
Wage pays employees, rent, utilities, phone, car, and food. It depends on the area what the living wage is.

This is not it -->


----------



## task0778

Slyhunter said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the employer can't afford an American living wage then he shouldn't do business in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If an employee isn't worth a living wage then he/she shouldn't be paid a living wage in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He should just die and get out of the way?
Click to expand...


No, what a stupid thing to say.   What he should do is look for ways to increase his value to whoever he works for.   In any way possible.


----------



## task0778

Slyhunter said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the employer can't afford an American living wage then he shouldn't do business in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell is a living wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why the fuck do I have to keep repeating myself.
> Wage pays employees, rent, utilities, phone, car, and food. It depends on the area what the living wage is.
Click to expand...


It is not your employer's responsibility to pay you enough to cover your rent, utilities, phone, car, and food.   That is 100% totally on the employee.


----------



## Humorme

task0778 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the employer can't afford an American living wage then he shouldn't do business in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If an employee isn't worth a living wage then he/she shouldn't be paid a living wage in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He should just die and get out of the way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what a stupid thing to say.   What he should do is look for ways to increase his value to whoever he works for.   In any way possible.
Click to expand...


The problem is, not everybody has the mental or physical capacity to do what you think ought to be done.

As I'm typing this, there is a story on tv going in downstairs about kids with autism.  They turn 21, are being kicked out of school and the only thing left is Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid, for the balance of their lives.  So, you'd rather pay millions of people to, essentially do nothing, when they could be minimally productive if an employer would pay them something for their time???

If Socialist Security Disability pays as much as the job, ummm.... which will these people choose?

I don't think there is an easy answer on this.  There is no definable term as a livable wage, but as I said before, if someone cannot meet a community's standard, the local government is not obligated to issue a business license if all the company can pay is slave wages.  Let the locals figure it out.


----------



## task0778

Humorme said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the employer can't afford an American living wage then he shouldn't do business in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If an employee isn't worth a living wage then he/she shouldn't be paid a living wage in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He should just die and get out of the way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what a stupid thing to say.   What he should do is look for ways to increase his value to whoever he works for.   In any way possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, not everybody has the mental or physical capacity to do what you think ought to be done.
> 
> As I'm typing this, there is a story on tv going in downstairs about kids with autism.  They turn 21, are being kicked out of school and the only thing left is Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid, for the balance of their lives.  So, you'd rather pay millions of people to, essentially do nothing, when they could be minimally productive if an employer would pay them something for their time???
> 
> If Socialist Security Disability pays as much as the job, ummm.... which will these people choose?
> 
> I don't think there is an easy answer on this.  There is no definable term as a livable wage, but as I said before, if someone cannot meet a community's standard, the local government is not obligated to issue a business license if all the company can pay is slave wages.  Let the locals figure it out.
Click to expand...


There is such a thing as Supplemental Security Income, not sure how that differs from SSDI.    Don't think it pays as much as a job, but I don't think so.   I don't know jack about it, but I'd favor that over being permanently unemployed, cuz I think there's something unhealthy for those who can work but aren't up to the tasks that might be required.   I would suggest that in many if not most cases those with somewhat diminished abilities can do something.   It could be temporary or permanent if warranted.   But I'd rather see people working and earning something even if it's not enough to live on.

https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/

I am fine with local and state gov'ts deciding what the minimum wages should be.   It's a jobkiller IMHO and they'll pay for it if they make bad decisions, but I do not think the federal gov't ought to have any say at all in it.


----------



## Humorme

task0778 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the employer can't afford an American living wage then he shouldn't do business in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If an employee isn't worth a living wage then he/she shouldn't be paid a living wage in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He should just die and get out of the way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what a stupid thing to say.   What he should do is look for ways to increase his value to whoever he works for.   In any way possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, not everybody has the mental or physical capacity to do what you think ought to be done.
> 
> As I'm typing this, there is a story on tv going in downstairs about kids with autism.  They turn 21, are being kicked out of school and the only thing left is Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid, for the balance of their lives.  So, you'd rather pay millions of people to, essentially do nothing, when they could be minimally productive if an employer would pay them something for their time???
> 
> If Socialist Security Disability pays as much as the job, ummm.... which will these people choose?
> 
> I don't think there is an easy answer on this.  There is no definable term as a livable wage, but as I said before, if someone cannot meet a community's standard, the local government is not obligated to issue a business license if all the company can pay is slave wages.  Let the locals figure it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is such a thing as Supplemental Security Income, not sure how that differs from SSDI.    Don't think it pays as much as a job, but I don't think so.   I don't know jack about it, but I'd favor that over being permanently unemployed, cuz I think there's something unhealthy for those who can work but aren't up to the tasks that might be required.   I would suggest that in many if not most cases those with somewhat diminished abilities can do something.   It could be temporary or permanent if warranted.   But I'd rather see people working and earning something even if it's not enough to live on.
> 
> Supplemental Security Income
> 
> I am fine with local and state gov'ts deciding what the minimum wages should be.   It's a jobkiller IMHO and they'll pay for it if they make bad decisions, but I do not think the federal gov't ought to have any say at all in it.
Click to expand...


Yeah, everybody has an easy answer; however, all those government programs were looked at and they came up short.  NONE of them provided enough money for the mildly disadvantaged to really have anything except a meager existence - not even what you would consider a life.

That was but one segment of our society.  Let's face facts:

The United States has more people in prison than any nation on this planet.  Even* if* they manage to get out, they carry with them a *permanent *criminal record and are locked out of society.  We would be better off to liquidate those people rather than to keep playing this game.  They are statistics employed by political propaganda prostitutes to falsely accuse foreigners of "_stealing jobs_."  That is impossible anyway since a job belongs to the person that created it.

We are a society that has laws that prohibit hiring the older workers, but they aren't enforced.  The old people don't have an NAACP, ADL, MPAC or CAIR.  Again, instead of resolving the real, underlying issue, we are ignoring it.  It's more popular to blame and scapegoat.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Slyhunter said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the employer can't afford an American living wage then he shouldn't do business in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell is a living wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why the fuck do I have to keep repeating myself.
> Wage pays employees, rent, utilities, phone, car, and food. It depends on the area what the living wage is.
> 
> This is not it -->
Click to expand...



Why the fuck does one need a car? What kind of car is a living wage? A Mercedes? A BMW? What kind of phone an Android a I phone a flip phone?

What kind of food ? Steak in lobster? Beans! 


No you never explained your self so you want the government to micro manage wages from big cities to cities of 100 people? LMFAO......


----------



## task0778

Humorme said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an employee isn't worth a living wage then he/she shouldn't be paid a living wage in America.
> 
> 
> 
> He should just die and get out of the way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what a stupid thing to say.   What he should do is look for ways to increase his value to whoever he works for.   In any way possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, not everybody has the mental or physical capacity to do what you think ought to be done.
> 
> As I'm typing this, there is a story on tv going in downstairs about kids with autism.  They turn 21, are being kicked out of school and the only thing left is Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid, for the balance of their lives.  So, you'd rather pay millions of people to, essentially do nothing, when they could be minimally productive if an employer would pay them something for their time???
> 
> If Socialist Security Disability pays as much as the job, ummm.... which will these people choose?
> 
> I don't think there is an easy answer on this.  There is no definable term as a livable wage, but as I said before, if someone cannot meet a community's standard, the local government is not obligated to issue a business license if all the company can pay is slave wages.  Let the locals figure it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is such a thing as Supplemental Security Income, not sure how that differs from SSDI.    Don't think it pays as much as a job, but I don't think so.   I don't know jack about it, but I'd favor that over being permanently unemployed, cuz I think there's something unhealthy for those who can work but aren't up to the tasks that might be required.   I would suggest that in many if not most cases those with somewhat diminished abilities can do something.   It could be temporary or permanent if warranted.   But I'd rather see people working and earning something even if it's not enough to live on.
> 
> Supplemental Security Income
> 
> I am fine with local and state gov'ts deciding what the minimum wages should be.   It's a jobkiller IMHO and they'll pay for it if they make bad decisions, but I do not think the federal gov't ought to have any say at all in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, everybody has an easy answer; however, all those government programs were looked at and they came up short.  NONE of them provided enough money for the mildly disadvantaged to really have anything except a meager existence - not even what you would consider a life.
> 
> That was but one segment of our society.  Let's face facts:
> 
> The United States has more people in prison than any nation on this planet.  Even* if* they manage to get out, they carry with them a *permanent *criminal record and are locked out of society.  We would be better off to liquidate those people rather than to keep playing this game.  They are statistics employed by political propaganda prostitutes to falsely accuse foreigners of "_stealing jobs_."  That is impossible anyway since a job belongs to the person that created it.
> 
> We are a society that has laws that prohibit hiring the older workers, but they aren't enforced.  The old people don't have an NAACP, ADL, MPAC or CAIR.  Again, instead of resolving the real, underlying issue, we are ignoring it.  It's more popular to blame and scapegoat.
Click to expand...


Well, first off I know of no law that prohibits hiring of older workers, and if you don't think the AARP isn't a political force to deal with then you are mistaken.   And old people do vote, in big numbers, so don't fuck with us, LOL.

Second, convicted criminals carry a permanent record and that is as it should be.   Baldly put, they fucked up and part of the consequences for that is the stigma that goes with pretty much for the rest of your life.   IOW, tough shit buddy.   BUT, they ain't locked out of society either, I know a guy that was in prison and now runs his own landscaping business, so it ain't like these people have a scarlet letter burned into their forehead that says ex-con.   And liquidate people?   Hyperbole much?   I guess eugenics isn't dead after all.

And BTW, you're kind of going off the thread somewhat, this is about sanctuary cities isn't it?


----------



## Humorme

task0778 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> He should just die and get out of the way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what a stupid thing to say.   What he should do is look for ways to increase his value to whoever he works for.   In any way possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, not everybody has the mental or physical capacity to do what you think ought to be done.
> 
> As I'm typing this, there is a story on tv going in downstairs about kids with autism.  They turn 21, are being kicked out of school and the only thing left is Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid, for the balance of their lives.  So, you'd rather pay millions of people to, essentially do nothing, when they could be minimally productive if an employer would pay them something for their time???
> 
> If Socialist Security Disability pays as much as the job, ummm.... which will these people choose?
> 
> I don't think there is an easy answer on this.  There is no definable term as a livable wage, but as I said before, if someone cannot meet a community's standard, the local government is not obligated to issue a business license if all the company can pay is slave wages.  Let the locals figure it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is such a thing as Supplemental Security Income, not sure how that differs from SSDI.    Don't think it pays as much as a job, but I don't think so.   I don't know jack about it, but I'd favor that over being permanently unemployed, cuz I think there's something unhealthy for those who can work but aren't up to the tasks that might be required.   I would suggest that in many if not most cases those with somewhat diminished abilities can do something.   It could be temporary or permanent if warranted.   But I'd rather see people working and earning something even if it's not enough to live on.
> 
> Supplemental Security Income
> 
> I am fine with local and state gov'ts deciding what the minimum wages should be.   It's a jobkiller IMHO and they'll pay for it if they make bad decisions, but I do not think the federal gov't ought to have any say at all in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, everybody has an easy answer; however, all those government programs were looked at and they came up short.  NONE of them provided enough money for the mildly disadvantaged to really have anything except a meager existence - not even what you would consider a life.
> 
> That was but one segment of our society.  Let's face facts:
> 
> The United States has more people in prison than any nation on this planet.  Even* if* they manage to get out, they carry with them a *permanent *criminal record and are locked out of society.  We would be better off to liquidate those people rather than to keep playing this game.  They are statistics employed by political propaganda prostitutes to falsely accuse foreigners of "_stealing jobs_."  That is impossible anyway since a job belongs to the person that created it.
> 
> We are a society that has laws that prohibit hiring the older workers, but they aren't enforced.  The old people don't have an NAACP, ADL, MPAC or CAIR.  Again, instead of resolving the real, underlying issue, we are ignoring it.  It's more popular to blame and scapegoat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, first off I know of no law that prohibits hiring of older workers, and if you don't think the AARP isn't a political force to deal with then you are mistaken.   And old people do vote, in big numbers, so don't fuck with us, LOL.
> 
> Second, convicted criminals carry a permanent record and that is as it should be.   Baldly put, they fucked up and part of the consequences for that is the stigma that goes with pretty much for the rest of your life.   IOW, tough shit buddy.   BUT, they ain't locked out of society either, I know a guy that was in prison and now runs his own landscaping business, so it ain't like these people have a scarlet letter burned into their forehead that says ex-con.   And liquidate people?   Hyperbole much?   I guess eugenics isn't dead after all.
> 
> 
> And BTW, you're kind of going off the thread somewhat, this is about sanctuary cities isn't it?
Click to expand...


And, *why*, Junior, do you think some places are in favor of sanctuary cities?  

That's mighty cowardly of you to post a condescending post aimed at me.  Can you tell me the last time AARP initiated a lawsuit against a major corporation for not hiring older workers?

ONE exception from the many people who do not have the IQ nor the ability to start a landscape business is not proof of a damn thing except your arrogance and ultimate stupidity.  Do you always say jerk-off shit on the Net that you would never utter in public?

So, all the people who ever got a criminal record (a full third of them never really committed a crime) deserve to have their lives ruined over what may be, in a lot of instances, a youthful indiscretion?

And from the position you're taking - speaking up for the anti immigrant lobby, let me cut you down a notch or two.  You want to complain about eugenics?  Really?

The entire anti-immigrant lobbying effort is mostly financed by John Tanton who bankrolled the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), NumbersUSA, Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) - a total of over a dozen such nonprofits.  And *Tanton is pro-eugenics!
*
Who does the right think they are, dictating who the states say can invite in as guests?  And, if jobs aren't a main issue, what in the Hell is?


----------



## Humorme

JoeMoma said:


> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!



Well, you have asked the questions; you're over 425 posts into the discussion and no solution has been forthcoming.  May I?

You asked:

"_How should illegal immigration be controlled?_"

  In the first place, immigration is defined in* legal* terminology as:

"_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_." 

IF the people who we are so concerned with intended to become citizens and live here permanently, this would be a valid question.  I would submit that it is not.  

Those who come here and don't want to become citizens should not have to become citizens nor should they get the benefits / privileges / immunities of citizenship.


----------



## danielpalos

Not everyone who comes here wants to stay and become a citizen; the rest could be tourists.


----------



## Circe

Slyhunter said:


> If an employee isn't worth a living wage then he/she shouldn't be paid a living wage in America.





> He should just die and get out of the way?



No, no, you should personally pay all his living expenses.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Not everyone who comes here wants to stay and become a citizen; the rest could be tourists.



They can be Guest Workers with a government issued ID that subjects them to taxes and determines if they are trying to become de facto citizens when states try to circumvent certain federal laws (i.e. permitting undocumented foreigners to register and vote.)

Having the Guest Worker status would also allow foreigners to take a driver's license test and prove they can safely operate a motor vehicle on our highways.


----------



## danielpalos

Circe said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an employee isn't worth a living wage then he/she shouldn't be paid a living wage in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He should just die and get out of the way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no, you should personally pay all his living expenses.
Click to expand...

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone who comes here wants to stay and become a citizen; the rest could be tourists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can be Guest Workers with a government issued ID that subjects them to taxes and determines if they are trying to become de facto citizens when states try to circumvent certain federal laws (i.e. permitting undocumented foreigners to register and vote.)
> 
> Having the Guest Worker status would also allow foreigners to take a driver's license test and prove they can safely operate a motor vehicle on our highways.
Click to expand...

Anything more market friendly than what we have now.  Simply increasing tourism will help most States of our Union.


----------



## emilynghiem

JoeMoma said:


> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!



I imagine the solution would involve sponsoring organizations building entire campuses
around production facilities, schools, teaching hospitals and medical training programs,
military prisons and bases.  Where residents can be legally enrolled and registered, similar
to university work-study programs, which track the educational or work credits in plans
toward earning their residency or citizenship status. The main point is for each person to
be financially and legally sponsored so that people and organizations are able to take responsibility
for individuals, families or communities they support. www.earnedamnesty.org JoeMoma


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone who comes here wants to stay and become a citizen; the rest could be tourists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can be Guest Workers with a government issued ID that subjects them to taxes and determines if they are trying to become de facto citizens when states try to circumvent certain federal laws (i.e. permitting undocumented foreigners to register and vote.)
> 
> Having the Guest Worker status would also allow foreigners to take a driver's license test and prove they can safely operate a motor vehicle on our highways.
Click to expand...

You just described our already in place immigration visa system. SMFH


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah!  Did they came back and raided it again?
> 
> Again farmers I know and they know do NOT hire from agencies unless they have to because of shortages.
> 
> 
> 
> SMFH until you are able to read and speak normal English don't bother making another incredibly ignorant comment. Outside your little group of butt buddies is a whole other world, one in which many farmers are using agencies to bring in H2A and legal workers. I suggest you get caught up on the times and get your head out of your ass. watafuknidiot
> 
> Please for fuck sake, read the links and then have someone explain them to you.
> USA Farm Labor Jobs H2A Workers | USAFARMLABOR LLC
> 
> H2A & H2B Guest Worker Services | FEWA
> 
> Agri-Placements > Home
> 
> Home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand truth hurts. Grow up poor old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YAWN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Next time you do this again. I will kick your ass again. You got that?
> Remember you attack first. I was hoping we have a nice conversations but NOOOOO  you run out of intelligent rebuttal you start the attack.
> You should know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You couldn't figure out how to get out of a wet paper bag. SMFH
> 
> YAWN
Click to expand...


I’m baaaaack. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah!  Did they came back and raided it again?
> 
> Again farmers I know and they know do NOT hire from agencies unless they have to because of shortages.
> 
> 
> 
> SMFH until you are able to read and speak normal English don't bother making another incredibly ignorant comment. Outside your little group of butt buddies is a whole other world, one in which many farmers are using agencies to bring in H2A and legal workers. I suggest you get caught up on the times and get your head out of your ass. watafuknidiot
> 
> Please for fuck sake, read the links and then have someone explain them to you.
> USA Farm Labor Jobs H2A Workers | USAFARMLABOR LLC
> 
> H2A & H2B Guest Worker Services | FEWA
> 
> Agri-Placements > Home
> 
> Home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand truth hurts. Grow up poor old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YAWN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Next time you do this again. I will kick your ass again. You got that?
> Remember you attack first. I was hoping we have a nice conversations but NOOOOO  you run out of intelligent rebuttal you start the attack.
> You should know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You couldn't figure out how to get out of a wet paper bag. SMFH
> 
> YAWN
Click to expand...


Really? When you cannot even defend yourself. 

Because you hate these people so much. You downplayed or minimize the contributions of these illegal immigrants in our US economy especially here in California.

At the same time you are trying to maximize of these white and kids labor force using your experience based from your one city. That is one city. 

I never said the entire USA are overwhelmed by illegals but there are very large portions of US states that can no longer be ignored of their presence and importance.

Yes there are (still left) city like yours that you see majority are white or black kids.


----------



## charwin95

Liquid Reigns said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah!  Did they came back and raided it again?
> 
> Again farmers I know and they know do NOT hire from agencies unless they have to because of shortages.
> 
> 
> 
> SMFH until you are able to read and speak normal English don't bother making another incredibly ignorant comment. Outside your little group of butt buddies is a whole other world, one in which many farmers are using agencies to bring in H2A and legal workers. I suggest you get caught up on the times and get your head out of your ass. watafuknidiot
> 
> Please for fuck sake, read the links and then have someone explain them to you.
> USA Farm Labor Jobs H2A Workers | USAFARMLABOR LLC
> 
> H2A & H2B Guest Worker Services | FEWA
> 
> Agri-Placements > Home
> 
> Home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand truth hurts. Grow up poor old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YAWN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Next time you do this again. I will kick your ass again. You got that?
> Remember you attack first. I was hoping we have a nice conversations but NOOOOO  you run out of intelligent rebuttal you start the attack.
> You should know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You couldn't figure out how to get out of a wet paper bag. SMFH
> 
> YAWN
Click to expand...


Part of my business I have a department called QA. Under that departments I have a program called:
1. Vendor or Supplier Qualification, Vendor Certification, Vendor Audit (FDA Standards).

2. Customer Qualifications, Customer Survey, Customer Satisfaction. 

These require travel all over US and about 65% here in California. Year round and on going. 

When my QA group performed these task most of the time I go with them. As soon I enter the lobby BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG( owner, CEO or president white, asian, middle easterners, black, diversity of the logistics and operations ( like assemblers & technicians), diversity of doctors, nurses, lab workers, janitor etc etc etc. 

These where I meet tons of business owners, CEO or president from different categories. Most they became friends. 

Most of these trips required 2 or 3 days of about 4 or 5 hours  each days. 

During breaks I go around the city like this year 2 times in San Jose and San Francisco, one in Bakersfield, Fresno and Sacramento. I checked out the city’s best and point of interest places. I also checked out places like car washes, restaurants and other franchises. In these cities I just mentioned I did not see a single white or black dude working in car washes. 

Why I do these kind of stuff?  This is naturally imbedded in my system. 

For you to tell that my experience in labor force is minimum is funnier than hell.


----------



## charwin95

Im also a member of research group where I get paid for my opinion. It doesn’t pay much but it’s an honor.
First time I was asked to joined this  research group was in the early 90s before the launch of Lexus and Infinity here in US.
Should it be under Toyota or Nissan dealership or should it be stand alone?

This is on going year round for different kind of products and sometimes it cost me more because I have to travel. But it’s an honor.


----------



## KissMy

How many of these illegals clean Trump Hotels???


----------



## sedwin

JoeMoma said:


> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!


Question for you.  
1: If immigration laws are federal and we have a law enforcement agency who enforces those laws why should overworked local police forces do the job of the feds?
2: If "states rights" apply to every federal law conservatives hate why do they not apply here?
3: If state/local police determine it is far safer for their citizens to allow people to report crimes without fear of being deported why should some federal employee tell them, "We will decide what your state will do?"


----------



## danielpalos

All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.



Is your real name Winston Smith?  I remember how his story went.


----------



## Wyatt earp

sedwin said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you.
> 1: If immigration laws are federal and we have a law enforcement agency who enforces those laws why should overworked local police forces do the job of the feds?
> 2: If "states rights" apply to every federal law conservatives hate why do they not apply here?
> 3: If state/local police determine it is far safer for their citizens to allow people to report crimes without fear of being deported why should some federal employee tell them, "We will decide what your state will do?"
Click to expand...



This is not about weed or driving 65 mph, this is about Sanctuary state's and cities harboring illegal rapist , murders, giving them drivers license , car insurance that effect all states ..


----------



## Humorme

bear513 said:


> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you.
> 1: If immigration laws are federal and we have a law enforcement agency who enforces those laws why should overworked local police forces do the job of the feds?
> 2: If "states rights" apply to every federal law conservatives hate why do they not apply here?
> 3: If state/local police determine it is far safer for their citizens to allow people to report crimes without fear of being deported why should some federal employee tell them, "We will decide what your state will do?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is not about weed or driving 65 mph, this is about Sanctuary state's and cities harboring illegal rapist , murders, giving them drivers license , car insurance that effect all states ..
Click to expand...


*IF* states were doing all of that, Trump would use the military to seize the capital in the offending state.


----------



## sedwin

bear513 said:


> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you.
> 1: If immigration laws are federal and we have a law enforcement agency who enforces those laws why should overworked local police forces do the job of the feds?
> 2: If "states rights" apply to every federal law conservatives hate why do they not apply here?
> 3: If state/local police determine it is far safer for their citizens to allow people to report crimes without fear of being deported why should some federal employee tell them, "We will decide what your state will do?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is not about weed or driving 65 mph, this is about Sanctuary state's and cities harboring illegal rapist , murders, giving them drivers license , car insurance that effect all states ..
Click to expand...

If this is the case then Trump/GOP should hire more ICE agents to enforce their Federal ICE laws.  Telling state police they now have to do the jobs of ICE on the same pay is asinine.  What next will you require California police to fight in Afghanistan instead of catching murderers and rapists?  Perhaps the federal government will start saying YOU as a citizen of Texas (or where ever) should start collecting taxes for the IRS.  It's a stupid argument.  It's not the job of local police to do someone else job.  They don't have the money or resources.


----------



## Humorme

sedwin said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you.
> 1: If immigration laws are federal and we have a law enforcement agency who enforces those laws why should overworked local police forces do the job of the feds?
> 2: If "states rights" apply to every federal law conservatives hate why do they not apply here?
> 3: If state/local police determine it is far safer for their citizens to allow people to report crimes without fear of being deported why should some federal employee tell them, "We will decide what your state will do?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is not about weed or driving 65 mph, this is about Sanctuary state's and cities harboring illegal rapist , murders, giving them drivers license , car insurance that effect all states ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If this is the case then Trump/GOP should hire more ICE agents to enforce their Federal ICE laws.  Telling state police they now have to do the jobs of ICE on the same pay is asinine.  What next will you require California police to fight in Afghanistan instead of catching murderers and rapists?  Perhaps the federal government will start saying YOU as a citizen of Texas (or where ever) should start collecting taxes for the IRS.  It's a stupid argument.  It's not the job of local police to do someone else job.  They don't have the money or resources.
Click to expand...


I know you made that comment about the IRS in a sarcastic tone, but the Republicans want to build the most massive *POLICE STATE* in human history.  While they are advocating the evisceration of the Fourth Amendment and wasting money on a silly wall, while trying to force state and local governments to be unpaid feds, they aren't blowing smoke about a limited government.  

They are just plain in love with a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

danielpalos said:


> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.


They do, it's called an I-94 form.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

sedwin said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you.
> 1: If immigration laws are federal and we have a law enforcement agency who enforces those laws why should overworked local police forces do the job of the feds?
> 2: If "states rights" apply to every federal law conservatives hate why do they not apply here?
> 3: If state/local police determine it is far safer for their citizens to allow people to report crimes without fear of being deported why should some federal employee tell them, "We will decide what your state will do?"
Click to expand...

1) Local LEO do not round up illegals, yet as they come into contact with them via detaining them for a crime, they are supposed to run their info through their database and if they come back as illegally here/wanted by the feds, they are then supposed to hold them. Local LEO do not enforce federal immigration law.
2)See 1.
3)The only time an illegals info is ran is when they are detained, not when they are reporting a crime. The feds merely require the local LEO to notify the date the illegal would be released from their custody and to hold them for up to 72 hours as allowed by law so the feds can pick them up.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

sedwin said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you.
> 1: If immigration laws are federal and we have a law enforcement agency who enforces those laws why should overworked local police forces do the job of the feds?
> 2: If "states rights" apply to every federal law conservatives hate why do they not apply here?
> 3: If state/local police determine it is far safer for their citizens to allow people to report crimes without fear of being deported why should some federal employee tell them, "We will decide what your state will do?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is not about weed or driving 65 mph, this is about Sanctuary state's and cities harboring illegal rapist , murders, giving them drivers license , car insurance that effect all states ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If this is the case then Trump/GOP should hire more ICE agents to enforce their Federal ICE laws.  Telling state police they now have to do the jobs of ICE on the same pay is asinine.  What next will you require California police to fight in Afghanistan instead of catching murderers and rapists?  Perhaps the federal government will start saying YOU as a citizen of Texas (or where ever) should start collecting taxes for the IRS.  It's a stupid argument.  It's not the job of local police to do someone else job.  They don't have the money or resources.
Click to expand...

Neither the feds nor the GOP has stated that local LEO are required to do ICE's job.  The law states that the local LEO are required to provide the detained illegals information with them so that the feds can then pick them up and remove them.


----------



## sedwin

Liquid Reigns said:


> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you.
> 1: If immigration laws are federal and we have a law enforcement agency who enforces those laws why should overworked local police forces do the job of the feds?
> 2: If "states rights" apply to every federal law conservatives hate why do they not apply here?
> 3: If state/local police determine it is far safer for their citizens to allow people to report crimes without fear of being deported why should some federal employee tell them, "We will decide what your state will do?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) Local LEO do not round up illegals, yet as they come into contact with them via detaining them for a crime, they are supposed to run their info through their database and if they come back as illegally here/wanted by the feds, they are then supposed to hold them. Local LEO do not enforce federal immigration law.
> 2)See 1.
> 3)The only time an illegals info is ran is when they are detained, not when they are reporting a crime. The feds merely require the local LEO to notify the date the illegal would be released from their custody and to hold them for up to 72 hours as allowed by law so the feds can pick them up.
Click to expand...

If anyone is arrested for a crime their info goes into the system. If they are "Illegal" ICE is informed immediately.  If you believe sanctuary city means that cops arrest an "Illegal" for murder or rape, then find out they are illegal and say never mind you can go free, then it is pointless to discuss this with you.  It simply does not work that way.  These cops and mayors have said we won't actively do ICE's job.  We do not have the time or the money to do their work.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

sedwin said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you.
> 1: If immigration laws are federal and we have a law enforcement agency who enforces those laws why should overworked local police forces do the job of the feds?
> 2: If "states rights" apply to every federal law conservatives hate why do they not apply here?
> 3: If state/local police determine it is far safer for their citizens to allow people to report crimes without fear of being deported why should some federal employee tell them, "We will decide what your state will do?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) Local LEO do not round up illegals, yet as they come into contact with them via detaining them for a crime, they are supposed to run their info through their database and if they come back as illegally here/wanted by the feds, they are then supposed to hold them. Local LEO do not enforce federal immigration law.
> 2)See 1.
> 3)The only time an illegals info is ran is when they are detained, not when they are reporting a crime. The feds merely require the local LEO to notify the date the illegal would be released from their custody and to hold them for up to 72 hours as allowed by law so the feds can pick them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If anyone is arrested for a crime their info goes into the system. If they are "Illegal" ICE is informed immediately.  If you believe sanctuary city means that cops arrest an "Illegal" for murder or rape, then find out they are illegal and say never mind you can go free, then it is pointless to discuss this with you.  It simply does not work that way.  These cops and mayors have said we won't actively do ICE's job.  We do not have the time or the money to do their work.
Click to expand...

Sanctuary cities don't even want to report the illegal through the system.  The feds nor the GOP have ever stated that local LEO are to go out and arrest illegals just because they are illegal. The issue being that LEO supervisors are telling their officers to not even inquire about a persons status.  Your neighborhood cop may be allowed to arrest undocumented immigrants


> If you’re an undocumented immigrant in the city of Sacramento, the local police are under orders not to inquire about your citizenship. The same goes in the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County patrolled by the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department.


This *IS* the issue.


----------



## sedwin

Liquid Reigns said:


> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you.
> 1: If immigration laws are federal and we have a law enforcement agency who enforces those laws why should overworked local police forces do the job of the feds?
> 2: If "states rights" apply to every federal law conservatives hate why do they not apply here?
> 3: If state/local police determine it is far safer for their citizens to allow people to report crimes without fear of being deported why should some federal employee tell them, "We will decide what your state will do?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) Local LEO do not round up illegals, yet as they come into contact with them via detaining them for a crime, they are supposed to run their info through their database and if they come back as illegally here/wanted by the feds, they are then supposed to hold them. Local LEO do not enforce federal immigration law.
> 2)See 1.
> 3)The only time an illegals info is ran is when they are detained, not when they are reporting a crime. The feds merely require the local LEO to notify the date the illegal would be released from their custody and to hold them for up to 72 hours as allowed by law so the feds can pick them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If anyone is arrested for a crime their info goes into the system. If they are "Illegal" ICE is informed immediately.  If you believe sanctuary city means that cops arrest an "Illegal" for murder or rape, then find out they are illegal and say never mind you can go free, then it is pointless to discuss this with you.  It simply does not work that way.  These cops and mayors have said we won't actively do ICE's job.  We do not have the time or the money to do their work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sanctuary cities don't even want to report the illegal through the system.  The feds nor the GOP have ever stated that local LEO are to go out and arrest illegals just because they are illegal. The issue being that LEO supervisors are telling their officers to not even inquire about a persons status.  Your neighborhood cop may be allowed to arrest undocumented immigrants
> 
> 
> 
> If you’re an undocumented immigrant in the city of Sacramento, the local police are under orders not to inquire about your citizenship. The same goes in the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County patrolled by the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This *IS* the issue.
Click to expand...

Again PARTIAL truth.  The cops do not ask for "your papers" if you report a crime, witness a crime or look like an illegal alien (whatever that might be), because, again, IT AINT THEIR JOB.  If they arrest you, you go into the system and ICE comes for you after you serve your time for the crime.  If you want people to ask people about their citizenship we have a police force to do that called ICE.

Perhaps the Republican Party, Fox News and Breitbart should open up their wallets and pay local police to do ICE's job.  Or again maybe Trump will tell all conservatives while they are working as a lawyer (or whatever) they also will knock on doors collecting taxes for the IRS.

It's a pointless conversation at this point.  You believe cops are letting rapists and murderers go free once they find out they are illegal.  Ridiculous. Perhaps you think if you cross the street when the sign says "don't walk" they should check your personal finances to see if you have paid all your taxes?  IT AINT THEIR JOB.  Get it through your head.  This is simply a ploy to fire up those who hate immigration and Democrats.  Nothing else.


----------



## Humorme

sedwin said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you.
> 1: If immigration laws are federal and we have a law enforcement agency who enforces those laws why should overworked local police forces do the job of the feds?
> 2: If "states rights" apply to every federal law conservatives hate why do they not apply here?
> 3: If state/local police determine it is far safer for their citizens to allow people to report crimes without fear of being deported why should some federal employee tell them, "We will decide what your state will do?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) Local LEO do not round up illegals, yet as they come into contact with them via detaining them for a crime, they are supposed to run their info through their database and if they come back as illegally here/wanted by the feds, they are then supposed to hold them. Local LEO do not enforce federal immigration law.
> 2)See 1.
> 3)The only time an illegals info is ran is when they are detained, not when they are reporting a crime. The feds merely require the local LEO to notify the date the illegal would be released from their custody and to hold them for up to 72 hours as allowed by law so the feds can pick them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If anyone is arrested for a crime their info goes into the system. If they are "Illegal" ICE is informed immediately.  If you believe sanctuary city means that cops arrest an "Illegal" for murder or rape, then find out they are illegal and say never mind you can go free, then it is pointless to discuss this with you.  It simply does not work that way.  These cops and mayors have said we won't actively do ICE's job.  We do not have the time or the money to do their work.
Click to expand...



You're right.  People like to demagogue the issue.  Rapists, murderers, etc. are held accountable for those crimes.

If, on the other hand, the only thing that a person has on the record is an accusation of being undocumented, the locals in San Francisco let it go.  It's not that uncommon.

I have a relative (by marriage) that was picked up for having a joint on him.  He was also on probation in that same county.  The city charged him $50 for the joint and let him go.  It wasn't even worth their time to hold him on the probation violation.  This practice of Sanctuary cities is no big deal.  It simply means the locals will not hold a person for being undocumented.  It's not their job.  Leave it to the anti-immigrant people and one day the IRS will be chasing you for a traffic violation.


----------



## danielpalos

Liquid Reigns said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> They do, it's called an I-94 form.
Click to expand...

A simple fine in addition to the regular fee?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

sedwin said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you.
> 1: If immigration laws are federal and we have a law enforcement agency who enforces those laws why should overworked local police forces do the job of the feds?
> 2: If "states rights" apply to every federal law conservatives hate why do they not apply here?
> 3: If state/local police determine it is far safer for their citizens to allow people to report crimes without fear of being deported why should some federal employee tell them, "We will decide what your state will do?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) Local LEO do not round up illegals, yet as they come into contact with them via detaining them for a crime, they are supposed to run their info through their database and if they come back as illegally here/wanted by the feds, they are then supposed to hold them. Local LEO do not enforce federal immigration law.
> 2)See 1.
> 3)The only time an illegals info is ran is when they are detained, not when they are reporting a crime. The feds merely require the local LEO to notify the date the illegal would be released from their custody and to hold them for up to 72 hours as allowed by law so the feds can pick them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If anyone is arrested for a crime their info goes into the system. If they are "Illegal" ICE is informed immediately.  If you believe sanctuary city means that cops arrest an "Illegal" for murder or rape, then find out they are illegal and say never mind you can go free, then it is pointless to discuss this with you.  It simply does not work that way.  These cops and mayors have said we won't actively do ICE's job.  We do not have the time or the money to do their work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sanctuary cities don't even want to report the illegal through the system.  The feds nor the GOP have ever stated that local LEO are to go out and arrest illegals just because they are illegal. The issue being that LEO supervisors are telling their officers to not even inquire about a persons status.  Your neighborhood cop may be allowed to arrest undocumented immigrants
> 
> 
> 
> If you’re an undocumented immigrant in the city of Sacramento, the local police are under orders not to inquire about your citizenship. The same goes in the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County patrolled by the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This *IS* the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again PARTIAL truth.  The cops do not ask for "your papers" if you report a crime, witness a crime or look like an illegal alien (whatever that might be), because, again, IT AINT THEIR JOB.  If they arrest you, you go into the system and ICE comes for you after you serve your time for the crime.  If you want people to ask people about their citizenship we have a police force to do that called ICE.
> 
> Perhaps the Republican Party, Fox News and Breitbart should open up their wallets and pay local police to do ICE's job.  Or again maybe Trump will tell all conservatives while they are working as a lawyer (or whatever) they also will knock on doors collecting taxes for the IRS.
> 
> It's a pointless conversation at this point.  You believe cops are letting rapists and murderers go free once they find out they are illegal.  Ridiculous. Perhaps you think if you cross the street when the sign says "don't walk" they should check your personal finances to see if you have paid all your taxes?  IT AINT THEIR JOB.  Get it through your head.  This is simply a ploy to fire up those who hate immigration and Democrats.  Nothing else.
Click to expand...

That's right, you are giving PARTIAL truth.  I never stated the cops ask for "your papers" if you report a crime, witness a crime or look like an illegal alien (whatever that might be), because, again, IT AINT THEIR JOB. 

Many local LEO supervisors are telling their officers to not even run them through the system, thus allowing many low level criminals to be allowed to remain.  Local LEO are required by law to determine the identity/status of the person they detain. That is their job. 

I don't believe cops are letting rapists and murderers go free once they find out they are illegal, it is a  documented fact that Progressive Democrats have done just that. Get that through your head . SMFH


----------



## Liquid Reigns

danielpalos said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> They do, it's called an I-94 form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A simple fine in addition to the regular fee?
Click to expand...

You sure like moving goal posts, don't you.


----------



## sedwin

Liquid Reigns said:


> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you.
> 1: If immigration laws are federal and we have a law enforcement agency who enforces those laws why should overworked local police forces do the job of the feds?
> 2: If "states rights" apply to every federal law conservatives hate why do they not apply here?
> 3: If state/local police determine it is far safer for their citizens to allow people to report crimes without fear of being deported why should some federal employee tell them, "We will decide what your state will do?"
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Local LEO do not round up illegals, yet as they come into contact with them via detaining them for a crime, they are supposed to run their info through their database and if they come back as illegally here/wanted by the feds, they are then supposed to hold them. Local LEO do not enforce federal immigration law.
> 2)See 1.
> 3)The only time an illegals info is ran is when they are detained, not when they are reporting a crime. The feds merely require the local LEO to notify the date the illegal would be released from their custody and to hold them for up to 72 hours as allowed by law so the feds can pick them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If anyone is arrested for a crime their info goes into the system. If they are "Illegal" ICE is informed immediately.  If you believe sanctuary city means that cops arrest an "Illegal" for murder or rape, then find out they are illegal and say never mind you can go free, then it is pointless to discuss this with you.  It simply does not work that way.  These cops and mayors have said we won't actively do ICE's job.  We do not have the time or the money to do their work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sanctuary cities don't even want to report the illegal through the system.  The feds nor the GOP have ever stated that local LEO are to go out and arrest illegals just because they are illegal. The issue being that LEO supervisors are telling their officers to not even inquire about a persons status.  Your neighborhood cop may be allowed to arrest undocumented immigrants
> 
> 
> 
> If you’re an undocumented immigrant in the city of Sacramento, the local police are under orders not to inquire about your citizenship. The same goes in the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County patrolled by the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This *IS* the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again PARTIAL truth.  The cops do not ask for "your papers" if you report a crime, witness a crime or look like an illegal alien (whatever that might be), because, again, IT AINT THEIR JOB.  If they arrest you, you go into the system and ICE comes for you after you serve your time for the crime.  If you want people to ask people about their citizenship we have a police force to do that called ICE.
> 
> Perhaps the Republican Party, Fox News and Breitbart should open up their wallets and pay local police to do ICE's job.  Or again maybe Trump will tell all conservatives while they are working as a lawyer (or whatever) they also will knock on doors collecting taxes for the IRS.
> 
> It's a pointless conversation at this point.  You believe cops are letting rapists and murderers go free once they find out they are illegal.  Ridiculous. Perhaps you think if you cross the street when the sign says "don't walk" they should check your personal finances to see if you have paid all your taxes?  IT AINT THEIR JOB.  Get it through your head.  This is simply a ploy to fire up those who hate immigration and Democrats.  Nothing else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, you are giving PARTIAL truth.  I never stated the cops ask for "your papers" if you report a crime, witness a crime or look like an illegal alien (whatever that might be), because, again, IT AINT THEIR JOB.
> 
> Many local LEO supervisors are telling their officers to not even run them through the system, thus allowing many low level criminals to be allowed to remain.  Local LEO are required by law to determine the identity/status of the person they detain. That is their job.
> 
> I don't believe cops are letting rapists and murderers go free once they find out they are illegal, it is a  documented fact that Progressive Democrats have done just that. Get that through your head . SMFH
Click to expand...

Simply false.  It is a proven fact YOU BELIEVE that lie because Fox News and Russian bots told you so.  Ask a cop or a mayor in those cities.  They have said time and time again they do not have the resources to do ICE's job for them and THAT is an actual 'sanctuary city.'  I'm done with you.  I can't decide if you are a Russian bot, or you are simply one of the suckers they target.  

Now I'll let you go because I see your unicorn is here to fly you back to make-believe land.  When you get there say "hello" to Hannity for me, kid.  lmao


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you.
> 1: If immigration laws are federal and we have a law enforcement agency who enforces those laws why should overworked local police forces do the job of the feds?
> 2: If "states rights" apply to every federal law conservatives hate why do they not apply here?
> 3: If state/local police determine it is far safer for their citizens to allow people to report crimes without fear of being deported why should some federal employee tell them, "We will decide what your state will do?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) Local LEO do not round up illegals, yet as they come into contact with them via detaining them for a crime, they are supposed to run their info through their database and if they come back as illegally here/wanted by the feds, they are then supposed to hold them. Local LEO do not enforce federal immigration law.
> 2)See 1.
> 3)The only time an illegals info is ran is when they are detained, not when they are reporting a crime. The feds merely require the local LEO to notify the date the illegal would be released from their custody and to hold them for up to 72 hours as allowed by law so the feds can pick them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If anyone is arrested for a crime their info goes into the system. If they are "Illegal" ICE is informed immediately.  If you believe sanctuary city means that cops arrest an "Illegal" for murder or rape, then find out they are illegal and say never mind you can go free, then it is pointless to discuss this with you.  It simply does not work that way.  These cops and mayors have said we won't actively do ICE's job.  We do not have the time or the money to do their work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  People like to demagogue the issue.  Rapists, murderers, etc. are held accountable for those crimes.
> 
> If, on the other hand, the only thing that a person has on the record is an accusation of being undocumented, the locals in San Francisco let it go.  It's not that uncommon.
> 
> I have a relative (by marriage) that was picked up for having a joint on him.  He was also on probation in that same county.  The city charged him $50 for the joint and let him go.  It wasn't even worth their time to hold him on the probation violation.  This practice of Sanctuary cities is no big deal.  It simply means the locals will not hold a person for being undocumented.  It's not their job.  Leave it to the anti-immigrant people and one day the IRS will be chasing you for a traffic violation.
Click to expand...

Nobody has said that rapists and murderers aren't held accountable for their crimes. SMFH 

The issue is if they are illegally here they are to inform DHS about their status and if DHS places a hold on that person, then they should hold that person for up to 72 hours as allowed by law for ICE to pick them up, the problem is sanctuary cities don't inform DHS nor do they hold the illegal as requested no matter how heinous the crime was.

I wonder why CA AG Becerra recently threatened business owners if they co-operate with ICE for illegals that may be employed by them. SMFH


----------



## Liquid Reigns

sedwin said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Local LEO do not round up illegals, yet as they come into contact with them via detaining them for a crime, they are supposed to run their info through their database and if they come back as illegally here/wanted by the feds, they are then supposed to hold them. Local LEO do not enforce federal immigration law.
> 2)See 1.
> 3)The only time an illegals info is ran is when they are detained, not when they are reporting a crime. The feds merely require the local LEO to notify the date the illegal would be released from their custody and to hold them for up to 72 hours as allowed by law so the feds can pick them up.
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone is arrested for a crime their info goes into the system. If they are "Illegal" ICE is informed immediately.  If you believe sanctuary city means that cops arrest an "Illegal" for murder or rape, then find out they are illegal and say never mind you can go free, then it is pointless to discuss this with you.  It simply does not work that way.  These cops and mayors have said we won't actively do ICE's job.  We do not have the time or the money to do their work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sanctuary cities don't even want to report the illegal through the system.  The feds nor the GOP have ever stated that local LEO are to go out and arrest illegals just because they are illegal. The issue being that LEO supervisors are telling their officers to not even inquire about a persons status.  Your neighborhood cop may be allowed to arrest undocumented immigrants
> 
> 
> 
> If you’re an undocumented immigrant in the city of Sacramento, the local police are under orders not to inquire about your citizenship. The same goes in the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County patrolled by the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This *IS* the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again PARTIAL truth.  The cops do not ask for "your papers" if you report a crime, witness a crime or look like an illegal alien (whatever that might be), because, again, IT AINT THEIR JOB.  If they arrest you, you go into the system and ICE comes for you after you serve your time for the crime.  If you want people to ask people about their citizenship we have a police force to do that called ICE.
> 
> Perhaps the Republican Party, Fox News and Breitbart should open up their wallets and pay local police to do ICE's job.  Or again maybe Trump will tell all conservatives while they are working as a lawyer (or whatever) they also will knock on doors collecting taxes for the IRS.
> 
> It's a pointless conversation at this point.  You believe cops are letting rapists and murderers go free once they find out they are illegal.  Ridiculous. Perhaps you think if you cross the street when the sign says "don't walk" they should check your personal finances to see if you have paid all your taxes?  IT AINT THEIR JOB.  Get it through your head.  This is simply a ploy to fire up those who hate immigration and Democrats.  Nothing else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, you are giving PARTIAL truth.  I never stated the cops ask for "your papers" if you report a crime, witness a crime or look like an illegal alien (whatever that might be), because, again, IT AINT THEIR JOB.
> 
> Many local LEO supervisors are telling their officers to not even run them through the system, thus allowing many low level criminals to be allowed to remain.  Local LEO are required by law to determine the identity/status of the person they detain. That is their job.
> 
> I don't believe cops are letting rapists and murderers go free once they find out they are illegal, it is a  documented fact that Progressive Democrats have done just that. Get that through your head . SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply false.  It is a proven fact YOU BELIEVE that lie because Fox News and Russian bots told you so.  Ask a cop or a mayor in those cities.  They have said time and time again they do not have the resources to do ICE's job for them and THAT is an actual 'sanctuary city.'  I'm done with you.  I can't decide if you are a Russian bot, or you are simply one of the suckers they target.
> 
> Now I'll let you go because I see your unicorn is here to fly you back to make-believe land.  When you get there say "hello" to Hannity for me, kid.  lmao
Click to expand...

LMFAO Your ideological stupidity is hilarious. Nobody is asking them to do ICE's job, yet it is their job (local LEO) to determine the identity /status of the person they detain. SMFH


----------



## sedwin

Liquid Reigns said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How should illegal immigration be controlled?  It seems that the mindset of the sanctuary city/state crowd is that once a person arrives illegally (or over stays a visa), that person should be welcomed to stay, establish permanent residence, become legally employed, receive government services, acquire a driver’s license, enroll children into public schools, and eventually seek citizenship and have the right to vote.  In other words, the illegal immigrant is to be granted all the rights, benefits and protections as legal immigrants.  How can we control immigration if we don’t treat illegal immigration as a crime and allow illegal immigrants to simply blend into our society?  Also, if you believe we should have open boarders making all immigrants legal, just say so!
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you.
> 1: If immigration laws are federal and we have a law enforcement agency who enforces those laws why should overworked local police forces do the job of the feds?
> 2: If "states rights" apply to every federal law conservatives hate why do they not apply here?
> 3: If state/local police determine it is far safer for their citizens to allow people to report crimes without fear of being deported why should some federal employee tell them, "We will decide what your state will do?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) Local LEO do not round up illegals, yet as they come into contact with them via detaining them for a crime, they are supposed to run their info through their database and if they come back as illegally here/wanted by the feds, they are then supposed to hold them. Local LEO do not enforce federal immigration law.
> 2)See 1.
> 3)The only time an illegals info is ran is when they are detained, not when they are reporting a crime. The feds merely require the local LEO to notify the date the illegal would be released from their custody and to hold them for up to 72 hours as allowed by law so the feds can pick them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If anyone is arrested for a crime their info goes into the system. If they are "Illegal" ICE is informed immediately.  If you believe sanctuary city means that cops arrest an "Illegal" for murder or rape, then find out they are illegal and say never mind you can go free, then it is pointless to discuss this with you.  It simply does not work that way.  These cops and mayors have said we won't actively do ICE's job.  We do not have the time or the money to do their work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  People like to demagogue the issue.  Rapists, murderers, etc. are held accountable for those crimes.
> 
> If, on the other hand, the only thing that a person has on the record is an accusation of being undocumented, the locals in San Francisco let it go.  It's not that uncommon.
> 
> I have a relative (by marriage) that was picked up for having a joint on him.  He was also on probation in that same county.  The city charged him $50 for the joint and let him go.  It wasn't even worth their time to hold him on the probation violation.  This practice of Sanctuary cities is no big deal.  It simply means the locals will not hold a person for being undocumented.  It's not their job.  Leave it to the anti-immigrant people and one day the IRS will be chasing you for a traffic violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody has said that rapists and murderers aren't held accountable for their crimes. SMFH
> 
> The issue is if they are illegally here they are to inform DHS about their status and if DHS places a hold on that person, then they should hold that person for up to 72 hours as allowed by law for ICE to pick them up, the problem is sanctuary cities don't inform DHS nor do they hold the illegal as requested no matter how heinous the crime was.
> 
> I wonder why CA AG Becerra recently threatened business owners if they co-operate with ICE for illegals that may be employed by them. SMFH
Click to expand...

If they are arrested for a crime that's exactly what happens.  If they are not the local/state police do not go out and do ICE's job for them.  I'm done.   You fail to understand the fact's and issue at hand either because you do not want to understand, lack the mental capacity to understand or are a Russian bot.  At this point my guess is that it is all three.


----------



## sedwin

Liquid Reigns said:


> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone is arrested for a crime their info goes into the system. If they are "Illegal" ICE is informed immediately.  If you believe sanctuary city means that cops arrest an "Illegal" for murder or rape, then find out they are illegal and say never mind you can go free, then it is pointless to discuss this with you.  It simply does not work that way.  These cops and mayors have said we won't actively do ICE's job.  We do not have the time or the money to do their work.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary cities don't even want to report the illegal through the system.  The feds nor the GOP have ever stated that local LEO are to go out and arrest illegals just because they are illegal. The issue being that LEO supervisors are telling their officers to not even inquire about a persons status.  Your neighborhood cop may be allowed to arrest undocumented immigrants
> 
> 
> 
> If you’re an undocumented immigrant in the city of Sacramento, the local police are under orders not to inquire about your citizenship. The same goes in the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County patrolled by the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This *IS* the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again PARTIAL truth.  The cops do not ask for "your papers" if you report a crime, witness a crime or look like an illegal alien (whatever that might be), because, again, IT AINT THEIR JOB.  If they arrest you, you go into the system and ICE comes for you after you serve your time for the crime.  If you want people to ask people about their citizenship we have a police force to do that called ICE.
> 
> Perhaps the Republican Party, Fox News and Breitbart should open up their wallets and pay local police to do ICE's job.  Or again maybe Trump will tell all conservatives while they are working as a lawyer (or whatever) they also will knock on doors collecting taxes for the IRS.
> 
> It's a pointless conversation at this point.  You believe cops are letting rapists and murderers go free once they find out they are illegal.  Ridiculous. Perhaps you think if you cross the street when the sign says "don't walk" they should check your personal finances to see if you have paid all your taxes?  IT AINT THEIR JOB.  Get it through your head.  This is simply a ploy to fire up those who hate immigration and Democrats.  Nothing else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, you are giving PARTIAL truth.  I never stated the cops ask for "your papers" if you report a crime, witness a crime or look like an illegal alien (whatever that might be), because, again, IT AINT THEIR JOB.
> 
> Many local LEO supervisors are telling their officers to not even run them through the system, thus allowing many low level criminals to be allowed to remain.  Local LEO are required by law to determine the identity/status of the person they detain. That is their job.
> 
> I don't believe cops are letting rapists and murderers go free once they find out they are illegal, it is a  documented fact that Progressive Democrats have done just that. Get that through your head . SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply false.  It is a proven fact YOU BELIEVE that lie because Fox News and Russian bots told you so.  Ask a cop or a mayor in those cities.  They have said time and time again they do not have the resources to do ICE's job for them and THAT is an actual 'sanctuary city.'  I'm done with you.  I can't decide if you are a Russian bot, or you are simply one of the suckers they target.
> 
> Now I'll let you go because I see your unicorn is here to fly you back to make-believe land.  When you get there say "hello" to Hannity for me, kid.  lmao
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMFAO Your ideological stupidity is hilarious. Nobody is asking them to do ICE's job, yet it is their job (local LEO) to determine the identity /status of the person they detain. SMFH
Click to expand...

Immigration laws are NOT local.  They are Federal laws enforced by the Federal Agency ICE.  To deny that implies that as a Russian you do not understand the American system of law.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

sedwin said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for you.
> 1: If immigration laws are federal and we have a law enforcement agency who enforces those laws why should overworked local police forces do the job of the feds?
> 2: If "states rights" apply to every federal law conservatives hate why do they not apply here?
> 3: If state/local police determine it is far safer for their citizens to allow people to report crimes without fear of being deported why should some federal employee tell them, "We will decide what your state will do?"
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Local LEO do not round up illegals, yet as they come into contact with them via detaining them for a crime, they are supposed to run their info through their database and if they come back as illegally here/wanted by the feds, they are then supposed to hold them. Local LEO do not enforce federal immigration law.
> 2)See 1.
> 3)The only time an illegals info is ran is when they are detained, not when they are reporting a crime. The feds merely require the local LEO to notify the date the illegal would be released from their custody and to hold them for up to 72 hours as allowed by law so the feds can pick them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If anyone is arrested for a crime their info goes into the system. If they are "Illegal" ICE is informed immediately.  If you believe sanctuary city means that cops arrest an "Illegal" for murder or rape, then find out they are illegal and say never mind you can go free, then it is pointless to discuss this with you.  It simply does not work that way.  These cops and mayors have said we won't actively do ICE's job.  We do not have the time or the money to do their work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  People like to demagogue the issue.  Rapists, murderers, etc. are held accountable for those crimes.
> 
> If, on the other hand, the only thing that a person has on the record is an accusation of being undocumented, the locals in San Francisco let it go.  It's not that uncommon.
> 
> I have a relative (by marriage) that was picked up for having a joint on him.  He was also on probation in that same county.  The city charged him $50 for the joint and let him go.  It wasn't even worth their time to hold him on the probation violation.  This practice of Sanctuary cities is no big deal.  It simply means the locals will not hold a person for being undocumented.  It's not their job.  Leave it to the anti-immigrant people and one day the IRS will be chasing you for a traffic violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody has said that rapists and murderers aren't held accountable for their crimes. SMFH
> 
> The issue is if they are illegally here they are to inform DHS about their status and if DHS places a hold on that person, then they should hold that person for up to 72 hours as allowed by law for ICE to pick them up, the problem is sanctuary cities don't inform DHS nor do they hold the illegal as requested no matter how heinous the crime was.
> 
> I wonder why CA AG Becerra recently threatened business owners if they co-operate with ICE for illegals that may be employed by them. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they are arrested for a crime that's exactly what happens.  If they are not the local/state police do not go out and do ICE's job for them.  I'm done.   You fail to understand the fact's and issue at hand either because you do not want to understand, lack the mental capacity to understand or are a Russian bot.  At this point my guess is that it is all three.
Click to expand...

San Francisco, a sanctuary city, has threatened their LEO to not co-operate and to not inform DHS when they release anybody they believe to be an illegal.

Please go and show where I stated local LEO were to go out and do ICE's job. urafuknidiot


----------



## Liquid Reigns

sedwin said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary cities don't even want to report the illegal through the system.  The feds nor the GOP have ever stated that local LEO are to go out and arrest illegals just because they are illegal. The issue being that LEO supervisors are telling their officers to not even inquire about a persons status.  Your neighborhood cop may be allowed to arrest undocumented immigrantsThis *IS* the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Again PARTIAL truth.  The cops do not ask for "your papers" if you report a crime, witness a crime or look like an illegal alien (whatever that might be), because, again, IT AINT THEIR JOB.  If they arrest you, you go into the system and ICE comes for you after you serve your time for the crime.  If you want people to ask people about their citizenship we have a police force to do that called ICE.
> 
> Perhaps the Republican Party, Fox News and Breitbart should open up their wallets and pay local police to do ICE's job.  Or again maybe Trump will tell all conservatives while they are working as a lawyer (or whatever) they also will knock on doors collecting taxes for the IRS.
> 
> It's a pointless conversation at this point.  You believe cops are letting rapists and murderers go free once they find out they are illegal.  Ridiculous. Perhaps you think if you cross the street when the sign says "don't walk" they should check your personal finances to see if you have paid all your taxes?  IT AINT THEIR JOB.  Get it through your head.  This is simply a ploy to fire up those who hate immigration and Democrats.  Nothing else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, you are giving PARTIAL truth.  I never stated the cops ask for "your papers" if you report a crime, witness a crime or look like an illegal alien (whatever that might be), because, again, IT AINT THEIR JOB.
> 
> Many local LEO supervisors are telling their officers to not even run them through the system, thus allowing many low level criminals to be allowed to remain.  Local LEO are required by law to determine the identity/status of the person they detain. That is their job.
> 
> I don't believe cops are letting rapists and murderers go free once they find out they are illegal, it is a  documented fact that Progressive Democrats have done just that. Get that through your head . SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply false.  It is a proven fact YOU BELIEVE that lie because Fox News and Russian bots told you so.  Ask a cop or a mayor in those cities.  They have said time and time again they do not have the resources to do ICE's job for them and THAT is an actual 'sanctuary city.'  I'm done with you.  I can't decide if you are a Russian bot, or you are simply one of the suckers they target.
> 
> Now I'll let you go because I see your unicorn is here to fly you back to make-believe land.  When you get there say "hello" to Hannity for me, kid.  lmao
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMFAO Your ideological stupidity is hilarious. Nobody is asking them to do ICE's job, yet it is their job (local LEO) to determine the identity /status of the person they detain. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immigration laws are NOT local.  They are Federal laws enforced by the Federal Agency ICE.  To deny that implies that as a Russian you do not understand the American system of law.
Click to expand...

SMFH were you dropped on your head as a child or were you simply born stupid?  

Please show were I claim immigration laws are local? Now I'm a Russian? LMFAO


----------



## sedwin

Liquid Reigns said:


> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again PARTIAL truth.  The cops do not ask for "your papers" if you report a crime, witness a crime or look like an illegal alien (whatever that might be), because, again, IT AINT THEIR JOB.  If they arrest you, you go into the system and ICE comes for you after you serve your time for the crime.  If you want people to ask people about their citizenship we have a police force to do that called ICE.
> 
> Perhaps the Republican Party, Fox News and Breitbart should open up their wallets and pay local police to do ICE's job.  Or again maybe Trump will tell all conservatives while they are working as a lawyer (or whatever) they also will knock on doors collecting taxes for the IRS.
> 
> It's a pointless conversation at this point.  You believe cops are letting rapists and murderers go free once they find out they are illegal.  Ridiculous. Perhaps you think if you cross the street when the sign says "don't walk" they should check your personal finances to see if you have paid all your taxes?  IT AINT THEIR JOB.  Get it through your head.  This is simply a ploy to fire up those who hate immigration and Democrats.  Nothing else.
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, you are giving PARTIAL truth.  I never stated the cops ask for "your papers" if you report a crime, witness a crime or look like an illegal alien (whatever that might be), because, again, IT AINT THEIR JOB.
> 
> Many local LEO supervisors are telling their officers to not even run them through the system, thus allowing many low level criminals to be allowed to remain.  Local LEO are required by law to determine the identity/status of the person they detain. That is their job.
> 
> I don't believe cops are letting rapists and murderers go free once they find out they are illegal, it is a  documented fact that Progressive Democrats have done just that. Get that through your head . SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply false.  It is a proven fact YOU BELIEVE that lie because Fox News and Russian bots told you so.  Ask a cop or a mayor in those cities.  They have said time and time again they do not have the resources to do ICE's job for them and THAT is an actual 'sanctuary city.'  I'm done with you.  I can't decide if you are a Russian bot, or you are simply one of the suckers they target.
> 
> Now I'll let you go because I see your unicorn is here to fly you back to make-believe land.  When you get there say "hello" to Hannity for me, kid.  lmao
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMFAO Your ideological stupidity is hilarious. Nobody is asking them to do ICE's job, yet it is their job (local LEO) to determine the identity /status of the person they detain. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immigration laws are NOT local.  They are Federal laws enforced by the Federal Agency ICE.  To deny that implies that as a Russian you do not understand the American system of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SMFH were you dropped on your head as a child or were you simply born stupid?
> 
> Please show were I claim immigration laws are local? Now I'm a Russian? LMFAO
Click to expand...

This is LITERALLY your statement: "Nobody is asking them to do ICE's job, yet it is their job (local LEO) to determine the identity /status of the person they detain."
Everyone who is DETAINED and is ILLEGAL is reported to ICE.  People who are NOT DETAINED and have NOT COMMITTED a CRIME are not checked by the police.  To send 100 cops around to knock on 10,000,000 doors to check status is not within the budget of local police.  THAT is LITERALLY the job of the FEDERAL agency responsible to ENFORCE THAT FEDERAL LAW.  Do you have a reading problem or a comprehension problem?  There is not a single cop, mayor or official anywhere in this nation that does not report individuals arrested for crimes, to the FEDS for federal crimes.  It is simply a hate fantasy of the overly gullible, majority of conservatives.  
Federal Law Enforcement = Federal Laws.  Local Law Enforcement = Local Laws.  Period.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

sedwin said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, you are giving PARTIAL truth.  I never stated the cops ask for "your papers" if you report a crime, witness a crime or look like an illegal alien (whatever that might be), because, again, IT AINT THEIR JOB.
> 
> Many local LEO supervisors are telling their officers to not even run them through the system, thus allowing many low level criminals to be allowed to remain.  Local LEO are required by law to determine the identity/status of the person they detain. That is their job.
> 
> I don't believe cops are letting rapists and murderers go free once they find out they are illegal, it is a  documented fact that Progressive Democrats have done just that. Get that through your head . SMFH
> 
> 
> 
> Simply false.  It is a proven fact YOU BELIEVE that lie because Fox News and Russian bots told you so.  Ask a cop or a mayor in those cities.  They have said time and time again they do not have the resources to do ICE's job for them and THAT is an actual 'sanctuary city.'  I'm done with you.  I can't decide if you are a Russian bot, or you are simply one of the suckers they target.
> 
> Now I'll let you go because I see your unicorn is here to fly you back to make-believe land.  When you get there say "hello" to Hannity for me, kid.  lmao
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMFAO Your ideological stupidity is hilarious. Nobody is asking them to do ICE's job, yet it is their job (local LEO) to determine the identity /status of the person they detain. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immigration laws are NOT local.  They are Federal laws enforced by the Federal Agency ICE.  To deny that implies that as a Russian you do not understand the American system of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SMFH were you dropped on your head as a child or were you simply born stupid?
> 
> Please show were I claim immigration laws are local? Now I'm a Russian? LMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is LITERALLY your statement: "Nobody is asking them to do ICE's job, yet it is their job (local LEO) to determine the identity /status of the person they detain."
> Everyone who is DETAINED and is ILLEGAL is reported to ICE.  People who are NOT DETAINED and have NOT COMMITTED a CRIME are not checked by the police.  To send 100 cops around to knock on 10,000,000 doors to check status is not within the budget of local police.  THAT is LITERALLY the job of the FEDERAL agency responsible to ENFORCE THAT FEDERAL LAW.  Do you have a reading problem or a comprehension problem?  There is not a single cop, mayor or official anywhere in this nation that does not report individuals arrested for crimes, to the FEDS for federal crimes.  It is simply a hate fantasy of the overly gullible, majority of conservatives.
> Federal Law Enforcement = Federal Laws.  Local Law Enforcement = Local Laws.  Period.
Click to expand...

That's right, that is my statement, and it is the requirement of local LEO to do in general. SMFH Local LEO are required to identify the person they have come into contact with or detained, the SCOTUS has ruled on it.

No, not everyone that is detained and is illegal is reported to ICE, that IS the issue. San Francisco refuses to do just that, unless the criminal is a heinous offender. If an illegal is detained for non-violent crimes the local LEO are supposed to release them with no report to ICE, this is directly from the County Supervisors and the Mayor to the local LEO in SF.

Where did I ever claim that people who are NOT DETAINED and have NOT COMMITTED a CRIME are checked by the police? SMFH

Where have I stated local LEO were to go around knocking on doors?SMFH

You sure like to put words in peoples comments that aren't there just so you can knock down the very strawman you just created. watafuknidiot


----------



## Liquid Reigns

> The Board of Supervisors previously reaffirmed the Sanctuary City ordinance as written back in October, which held that the sheriff should only notify federal immigration authorities of the release of an inmate with no legal status if they have had a _violent_ felony conviction in the past seven years, and they face another violent felony charge.
> 
> *Former sheriff Ross Mirkarimi's policy barred communication with ICE in almost all circumstances.* And as the Chronicle explains, under the new compromise legislation, Sheriff Hennessy has "*discretion to notify immigration agents if the inmate had a violent or serious felony conviction in the past seven years or three or more lesser felonies arising from different events in the past five years... [Also] Hennessy may... notify immigration agents if the defendant has a conviction for a serious felony like murder or rape within five years.*"
> 
> The compromise came in that *the person in question must not only be charged by law enforcement, but must also be determined likely guilty by a judge before any notification to federal agents can occur*.



SF Clarifies Its Sanctuary City Policy, And Illegal Immigrants With Serious Felonies Are Exceptions

This is an actual Ordinance (City Law) in San Francisco. 



> Specifically, the Board will not change its non-binding resolution, one that is both symbolic and powerful, ordinance observed and upheld since 1989, that the sheriff should only notify federal immigration authorities of the release of an inmate with no legal status if they have had a violent felony conviction in the past seven years and face another violent felony charge.


SF's Sanctuary City Status Safe In Unanimous Vote, Rebuffing Conservative Media


----------



## Humorme

sedwin said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, you are giving PARTIAL truth.  I never stated the cops ask for "your papers" if you report a crime, witness a crime or look like an illegal alien (whatever that might be), because, again, IT AINT THEIR JOB.
> 
> Many local LEO supervisors are telling their officers to not even run them through the system, thus allowing many low level criminals to be allowed to remain.  Local LEO are required by law to determine the identity/status of the person they detain. That is their job.
> 
> I don't believe cops are letting rapists and murderers go free once they find out they are illegal, it is a  documented fact that Progressive Democrats have done just that. Get that through your head . SMFH
> 
> 
> 
> Simply false.  It is a proven fact YOU BELIEVE that lie because Fox News and Russian bots told you so.  Ask a cop or a mayor in those cities.  They have said time and time again they do not have the resources to do ICE's job for them and THAT is an actual 'sanctuary city.'  I'm done with you.  I can't decide if you are a Russian bot, or you are simply one of the suckers they target.
> 
> Now I'll let you go because I see your unicorn is here to fly you back to make-believe land.  When you get there say "hello" to Hannity for me, kid.  lmao
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMFAO Your ideological stupidity is hilarious. Nobody is asking them to do ICE's job, yet it is their job (local LEO) to determine the identity /status of the person they detain. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immigration laws are NOT local.  They are Federal laws enforced by the Federal Agency ICE.  To deny that implies that as a Russian you do not understand the American system of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SMFH were you dropped on your head as a child or were you simply born stupid?
> 
> Please show were I claim immigration laws are local? Now I'm a Russian? LMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is LITERALLY your statement: "Nobody is asking them to do ICE's job, yet it is their job (local LEO) to determine the identity /status of the person they detain."
> Everyone who is DETAINED and is ILLEGAL is reported to ICE.  People who are NOT DETAINED and have NOT COMMITTED a CRIME are not checked by the police.  To send 100 cops around to knock on 10,000,000 doors to check status is not within the budget of local police.  THAT is LITERALLY the job of the FEDERAL agency responsible to ENFORCE THAT FEDERAL LAW.  Do you have a reading problem or a comprehension problem?  There is not a single cop, mayor or official anywhere in this nation that does not report individuals arrested for crimes, to the FEDS for federal crimes.  It is simply a hate fantasy of the overly gullible, majority of conservatives.
> Federal Law Enforcement = Federal Laws.  Local Law Enforcement = Local Laws.  Period.
Click to expand...


Sometimes, you have to put trolls on ignore.


----------



## danielpalos

Liquid Reigns said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> They do, it's called an I-94 form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A simple fine in addition to the regular fee?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure like moving goal posts, don't you.
Click to expand...

actually solving the problem via applied Capitalism, too liberal for the right wing?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Sometimes, you have to put trolls on ignore.


You only refer to people as trolls when they make your claims  look ignorant and you foolish. SMFH


----------

